Was the US intended to be a "Christian nation"?

by logansrun 35 Replies latest jw friends

  • Greenpalmtreestillmine
    Greenpalmtreestillmine

    Sabrina

  • Panda
    Panda

    Let me see...ok...let's start with the Pilgrim's.. people so boring the English threw them out, came to America for religious freedom and proceeded to demand everyone follow their religion. So that was bad, and they were still British citizens. Eventually the new "born in America" educated guys decide to throw off the British yoke (actually German because George and his family were German) of rules and taxes and considering the beating Catholics and Quakers had taken under Cromwell and that certain colonies were established to provide sanctuary for Catholics and Quakers, well America began to look like THE place to be for religious choice. However all of the then choices were based on the Bible not the Bagavadgita.

    Freedom from a state religion, often called freedom of religion is what led to what Stark called the churching of America. Take one holy book and add individual thinkers and you get the reformation gone berserk.

    However, our laws are based on the British system (remember the Magna Carta?) WHich of course had some basis with Greek philosophers. However equality and freedom for non-property holders is certainly uniquely American (and faux-adopted by others.)

    By legislating and not simply claiming that the state has no interest in regulating religion is a step to high moral ground. Christianity was indeed a part of the culture of Europeans, but not all Europeans were Christian. And when we consider that Jesus stole the beatitudes from Buddha..well Christianity ain't all that original in itself. So let's say that the United States has legislated itself as free from religion and our nation is striving towrds throwing off the yoke of patriarchy...AMEN.

  • Larry
    Larry

    That was really a Great piece - Thanks for sharing that info. It should be required reading or required thinking in the curriculum of American schools. I agree with your thesis, but right or wrong, this subject should challenge people to question their beliefs and draw their own conclusions instead of accepting the beliefs of their given nation. Beliefs shouldn't be based on geographic location, but on personal experiences and research.

    I will respond further to your post when I get spare time.

    Thanks again - Larry :)

    Also, the motto - "In God We Trust" was added on US currency in 1864 (2 cent piece) and 1957 (paper bills), well after the establishment of this country.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi
    Thomas Paine and the Age of Reason

    Thomas Paine is sometimes grouped with the Founding Fathers. Your daily newspaper might reinforce this view with editorials like this:

    Franklin, Washington, Jefferson, Paine and most of our other patriarchs were at best deists, believing in the unmoved mover of Aristotle, but not the God of the Old and New Testaments.[1]

    It would be difficult to name a single one of the Founding Fathers who approved of Paine's Age of Reason, his famous tract attacking religion in general and evangelical Christianity in particular. Even less-than-evangelicals like Benjamin Franklin and the "Unitarians" all denounced Paine's book.

    Before Paine published his Age of Reason, he sent a manuscript copy to Benjamin Franklin, seeking his thoughts. Notice Franklin's strong and succinct reply, and keep in mind that those on all sides of the religion question would concede Franklin to be one of the least religious Founders:

    I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion that . . . the consequence of printing this piece will be a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits into the wind, spits in his own face. But were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? . . . [T]hink how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue . . . . I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person . . . . If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be without it? I intend this letter itself as proof of my friendship.[2]

    Samuel Adams was not quite as cordial as Franklin:

    [W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States. The people of New England, if you will allow me to use a Scripture phrase, are fast returning to their first love. Will you excite among them the spirit of angry controversy at a time when they are hastening to amity and peace? I am told that some of our newspapers have announced your intention to publish an additional pamphlet upon the principles of your Age of Reason. Do you think your pen, or the pen of any other man, can unchristianize the mass of our citizens, or have you hopes of converting a few of them to assist you in so bad a cause?[3]

    John Adams certainly spoke harshly of such anti-Christian propaganda:

    The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.[4]

    Far from opposing "the God of the Old and New Testaments," Adams defended the Bible as the basis for government in a Christian nation:

    Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited! Every member would be obliged in conscience, to temperance, frugality, and industry; to justice, kindness, and charity towards his fellow men; and to piety, love, and reverence toward Almighty God.... What a Eutopia, what a Paradise would this region be." [5]

    This was, in fact, the basis for the system of government in America, as Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813:

    The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. [6]

    • Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickenson that Paine's Age of Reason was "absurd and impious."[7]
    • Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as "blasphemous writings against the Christian religion."[8]
    • John Witherspoon, signer of the Declaration and mentor to many other Founders, said that Paine was "ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith."[9]
    • John Quincy Adams declared that "Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution." [10]

    Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation -- a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. In a letter to his daughter, Susan, Boudinot described his motivations for writing that rebuttal:

    I confess that I was much mortified to find the whole force of this vain man's genius and art pointed at the youth of America. . . . This awful consequence created some alarm in my mind lest at any future day, you, my beloved child, might take up this plausible address of infidelity; and for want of an answer at hand to his subtle insinuations might suffer even a doubt of the truth, as it is in Jesus, to penetrate your mind. . . . I therefore determined . . . to put my thoughts on the subject of this pamphlet on paper for your edification and information, when I shall be no more. I chose to confine myself to the leading and essential facts of the Gospel which are contradicted or attempted to be turned into ridicule by this writer. I have endeavored to detect his falsehoods and misrepresentations and to show his extreme ignorance of the Divine Scriptures which he makes the subject of his animadversions -- not knowing that "they are the power of God unto salvation, to every one that believeth [Romans 1:16]."[11]

    Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as "the puny efforts of Paine." However, after reading Bishop Richard Watson's Apology for the Bible written against Paine, Henry deemed that work sufficient and decided not to publish his reply.[12]

    When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered:

    Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God? Oh shame, where is thy blush? Is this the way to continue independent, and to render the 4th of July immortal in memory and song?[13]

    Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, warned:

    [W]e cannot sufficiently reprobate the beliefs of Thomas Paine in his attack on Christianity by publishing his Age of Reason . . . . He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers . . . . No language can describe the wickedness of the man who will attempt to subvert a religion which is a source of comfort and consolation to its votaries [devout worshipers] merely for the purpose of eradicating all sentiments of religion.[14]

    John Jay, co-author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack:

    I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds, and I think they who undertake that task will derived advantages. . . . As to The Age of Reason, it never appeared to me to have been written from a disinterested love of truth or of mankind.[15]

    Many other similar writings could be cited, but these are sufficient to show that Paine's views were strongly rejected even by the least religious Founders. In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that -- as Franklin predicted -- he spent his last years in New York as "an outcast" in "social ostracism" and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains.[16]

    Yet, even Thomas Paine cannot be called an atheist, for in the same work wherein he so strongly attacked Christianity, Paine also declared:

    I believe in one God . . . and I hope for happiness beyond this life.[17]

    The Founding Fathers simply were not atheists -- not even one of them. As Franklin had earlier explained to his European hosts while in France:

    [B]ad examples to youth are more rare in America, which must be comfortable consideration to parents. To this may be truly added, that serious religion, under its various denominations, is not only tolerated, but respected and practiced. Atheism is unknown there; infidelity rare and secret; so that persons may live to a great age in that country, without having their piety shocked by meeting with either an atheist or an infidel.[18]

    While members of the Supreme Court have held that government cannot show "respect" for religion, Franklin says the opposite.

    [See David Barton, Original Intent, 130-34 for words in blue.]

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi
    The Organic Law

    "The Organic Law" is the most fundamental charters of a nation. The Organic Law of the United States can be found in the first volume of the U.S. Code, and includes The Articles of Confederation, The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Northwest Ordinance. Contrary to the modern Supreme Court, our nation's organic law endorses and promotes religion and morality, making atheists feel "left out."

    The Articles of Confederation conclude:

    And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, etc.

    The Declaration of Independence mentions "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God," a reference to the Bible.

    The Northwest Ordinance states the following:

    Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

    No more conclusive denial of the modern myth of separation of religion and government could be made. Good government is impossible without religion and morality. If that makes atheists feel like "second class citizens," well, the prosperity of the nation is more important than the fuzzy feelings of atheists.

    An older, more conservative U.S. Supreme Court declared in 1892 that America was a "Christian nation," and based this conclusion on a "mass of organic utterances," including the constitutions of every state in the union.

    Statutory Law

    The statutes in every state give evidence of a connection with religion and morality. Specifically (but not exclusively) the laws of the United States were based on the Ten Commandments.

    • The Ten Commandments in American History
    • The First Commandment in American Legal History
    • The Second Commandment in American Legal History
    • The Third Commandment in American Legal History
    • The Fourth Commandment in American Legal History
    • The Fifth Commandment in American Legal History
    • The Sixth Commandment in American Legal History
    • The Seventh Commandment in American Legal History
    • The Eighth Commandment in American Legal History
    • The Ninth Commandment in American Legal History
    • The Tenth Commandment in American Legal History
    • The Ten Commandments: A Jeffersonian Dialogue
    • America and "The God of Justice"

    Statutes were also based on other parts of the Bible outside of the Ten Commandments.

    Original Intent

    The Founding Fathers, in their official proclamations and other public utterances, continually asserted the importance of religion and morality, but never gave a hint that America was a secular nation or that the government was precluded from endorsing or promoting religion and morality.

    Back in 1930, the Yale Law Journal published an article by a secularist who was complaining that atheists were discriminated against in this Christian nation. His article catalogued all the ways America was a Christian nation, and how this was offensive to atheists. His article proves that America was a Christian nation, and that nobody for at least 100 years after the Constitution was ratified seriously denied this. In the 20th century, atheists have succeeded in flushing 100 years of American history down the Orwellian Memory Hole.

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    John Witherspoon:

    [T]o promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the substance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do. . . . The magistrate (or ruling party of any society) ought to encourage piety . . . [and] make it an object of public esteem.

    Witherspoon, Works, (1815) vol VII, pp. 118-119, "Jurisprudence," Lecture XIV.

    Those who are vested with civil authority ought . . . to promote religion and good morals among all under their government.

    Op. cit., Vol. IV, p. 265, from his "Sermon Delivered at Public Thanksgiving After Peace."

    Oliver Ellsworth:

    [T]he primary objects of government, are peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important.

    Oliver Ellsworth, Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court
    The Connecticut Courant (Hartford), June 7, 1802, p. 3, from "A Report of the Committee . . . to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut" by Oliver Ellsworth.

    Notice the similarity of his thoughts with those of the Northwest Ordinance:

    Art. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.

    John Hancock:

    Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [N]ot only the freedom but the very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion.

    Independent Chronicle (Boston), November 2, 1780, last page.
    See also Abram English Brown, John Hancock, His Book (Boston: Lee & Shepherd, 1898), p. 269.

    Abraham Baldwin:

    When the minds of the people in general are viciously disposed and unprincipled, and their conduct disorderly, a free government will be attended with greater confusions and evils more horrid than the wild, uncultivated state of nature. It can only be happy when the public principle and opinions are properly directed and their manners regulated. This is an influence beyond the reach of laws and punishments and can be claimed only by religion and education. It should therefore be among the first objects of those who wish well to the national prosperity to encourage and support the principles of religion and morality.

    Chas. C. Jones, Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress,
    (Boston & NY: Houghton, Miflin and Co., 1891) pp. 6-7

    Henry Laurens:

    I had the honor of being one among many who framed that Constitution. . . . In order effectually to accomplish these great ends, it is incumbent upon us to begin wisely and to proceed in the fear of God; and it is especially the duty of those who bear rule to promote and encourage piety [religion] and virtue and to discourage every degree of vice and immorality.

    Laurens, Papers vol. XI, p. 200, in a letter to Oliver Hart and Elharan Winchester on March 30, 1776

    Finally, John Jay:

    [It is] the duty of all wise, free, and virtuous governments to countenance and encourage virtue and religion.

    Speeches of the . . . Governors . . . of New York, p. 66 Governor Jay on Nov. 4, 1800
  • Hyghlandyr
    Hyghlandyr

    When I saw your piece Logansrun, I was going to emphatically shout NO! They were deists. As I began to read I no longer felt the need to shout. Ive known forever that they were deists, and what deism is. Your quotes from the main conspirators (wink) in the founding documents really lay it out though. As does your bibliography. You are almost as good a writer as I am a cheesecake eater. :D

    Again, because a couple of people seemed to miss the point, some of the founding fathers were christian, some were not. The documents though are most certainly not christian. It is interesting that some believe the principles there were founded on Judeo-christian principles. This is so far from the truth. Christianity is not just what is in the protestant bible. The developement of christianity is entirely anti freedom and it has been resistance to those concepts early christianity brought that created documents like our constitutions, the magna carta. Although some of these documents have had a religious veneer, the facts are their establishments came in direct defiance to ancient christian themes.

    By legislating and not simply claiming that the state has no interest in regulating religion is a step to high moral ground. Christianity was indeed a part of the culture of Europeans, but not all Europeans were Christian. And when we consider that Jesus stole the beatitudes from Buddha..well Christianity ain't all that original in itself. So let's say that the United States has legislated itself as free from religion and our nation is striving towrds throwing off the yoke of patriarchy...AMEN.

    This is an interesting comment and something, which while off topic I want to comment on. Especially the jesus stealing comment. Buddha stole them from previous christs. Krishna most likely. Who stole them from yet earlier Christoses, Horus most likely. Who probably stole them from yet other Christoses. The mythology (sacred traditions and stories) of the Christs is ancient beyond the records of history that we have in our public possession currently. Throughout the world, in diverse places and times, there is a consistent thread of story, moral, dogma, tradition, divinity, miracle, and history, real or fabled. It is duplicated in all of the patriarchies. It is also duplicated in those societies that are closest to matriarchies.

    The historicity of all of these Christs, male and female, is dubious at best. In the least we have to admit there is absolutely no secular verification of their existence from the time that they are purported to have existed. This includes the verification of Buddha, Siddartha. Please note that I said verification "from the time that they are purported to have existed." It is true that anywhere from one to many centuries after they are claimed to have existed, documents exist, either as claimed copies of documents written in the said time, or documents of those living long after, that while they are not believers in the special, they do believe in at least the existence of the person called Christ, Buddha, Krishna and so forth. Just as an atheist today may believe that jesus actually existed. However their belief in his existence, though not his son-of-god-ship, is not evidence of his existence.

    I can state reasonably that the evidence for both Buddha and Jesus is lacking. That is in their persons. However, the originals of both, the followers, taught in the form of Gnosis. Which, in part is a teaching that the Christ is not literal, but symbolic or spiritual. Thus Jesus didnt steal from Buddha nor the other way around. They are both simply reflections of a tradition that reason hands us. It is reasonable for instance to treat people nicely, with the expectation that you also will be treated nicely. It is the social contract. This is entirely asside from deity and without need for deity. The imposition of deity upon a moral code is entirely unnecessary for the development of a viable and just moral code that is fair for all. Only when control is added to the mix to cause people to act contrary to their natural and reasonable inclinations (shunning for instance or sexual desire) is religion and deity required.

    And that with a patriarchy or matriarchy. Havin said that I am a feminist. Though some will deny.

    Thank you again for your excellent post Logansrun.

  • seedy3
    seedy3

    An interesting article taken from www.williamedelen.com about presidents and the christian religion, he post a new article ever February on this subject:

    1. THE ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA....Vol 2, p420, 1968 Mortimer J. Adler, editor in chief "Great issues in American Life" quote: "One of the embarrassing problems for the nineteenth century champions of the Christian faith was the fact that not one of the first six presidents of the United States was a Christian. They were Deists."
    2. DEISM...There is no personal God, but only an impersonal force, energy, 'providence' Jesus was nothing more than a nomadic teacher and the bible is nothing but literature and bad literature at that filled with thousands of contradictions and falsehoods.
    3. GEORGE WASHINGTON approved the Treaty of Tripoli. The "Philadelphia Gazette" on June 17, 1797 printed the entire 12 articles of the Treaty with the notice that the Senate and President JOHN ADAMS had approved the Treaty UNANIMOUSLY. Not even one dissenting vote. Article 11 of that printed treaty begins with this statement: "THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IS NOT, IN ANY SENSE, FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION."
    4. GEORGE WASHINGTON "Being no bigot, I am disposed to HUMOR Christian ministers and the church. hoping that their fights will not endanger the peace of society" (Ltr. to Sir Edward Newenham).
    5. JOHN ADAMS..."The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus has made a convenient cover for absurdity. Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths are all trumpery." In the "Jefferson-Adams" Letters they both constantly joke about the stupidity of the Doctrine of the Trinity. "This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it." Jefferson-Adams Letters
    6. THOMAS JEFFERSON "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools...and the other half hypocrites." (Ltr. to Thomas Whitmore) "Christian creeds and doctrines, the clergy's own fatal inventions, through all the ages has made of Christendom a slaughter house" Notes on Religion, passed in the Assembly of Virginia, 1786
    7. JAMES MADISON Father of the Constitution and Bill of Rights: "During 15 centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been the fruits of this trial? In all places, pride and indolence in the clergy...ignorance and servility in the laity...and in both clergy and laity...superstition, bigotry and persecution." (From his speech to the General Assembly of Virginia, 1785) "A just government instituted to perpetuate liberty does not need the clergy or the church." (From the same speech)
    8. ABRAHAM LINCOLN though not a founding president shared exactly the same views. That most brilliant Pulitzer Prize biography of this giant is Carl Sandburg's "Abraham Lincoln." in which he writes that "Lincoln's views were such as would place him entirely outside of Christianity. Lincoln found Christian dogma and doctrine repugnant." In a letter to the clergy of Washington D.C., he stated: "The bible is not my book..nor Christianity my religion."

    A few gems that you might add to your Founding Presidents collection:

    • EMILE ZOLA "Civilization will thrive when the last stone...from the last church...falls on the head of the last priest."
    • RALPH WALDO EMERSON "Christian creeds and doctrines are a disease of the intellect."
    • SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN, Weiss vs. District Board, March 18, 1890..."The Source and cause of fights and malignancy, persecution, wars and all evil...is religion. Let it once enter our public schools and they would be destroyed."

    Presidents Month is a celebration of Deism. The Deism of the brilliant authors of our Declaration of Independence, our Constitution and our Bill of Rights. One of the most destructive characteristics of our contemporary world is the deliberate, conscious, falsification and invention of histories to suit an immediate political agenda and purposes. It is impossible to have an honest future until we are first honest about our past.

    The entire article can be found here http://www.williamedelen.com/feb012004.html

    About him can be found here http://www.williamedelen.com/edelenrecord.html

    And all of his articles on many religious subjects can be found here, they are a very interesting read http://www.williamedelen.com/ministries.html

    Happy reading
    Seedy

  • Hyghlandyr
    Hyghlandyr

    Seedy great report. Thanks man and how are things?

    ThiChi, There is no doubt that the nation as a whole was christian. The statements being made here is that some of the founding fathers, namely those doing the major writing of the documents in question, were not christians themselves but deists. Deism does not particularly oppose christianity. Though it has specifically in instances. As in the aforementioned persecutions of those called christians through history and the wars they have fomented.

    However the principles, ideals, upon which the documents are founded, while based on piety, are not based on christianity. Christianity has partial basis in piety, as do almost all other forms of morals, and religions. Religion is not required for morality. It is a fable that atheists are by nature less moral than christians, or that those of other religions are less moral than christians.

    However this brings up an issue I meant to before and forgot in my diatribe. Modern right wing christians have hijacked both Jesus, and the founding fathers. Their version of christianity was most certainly not that practiced and believed by all or even most of the founding fathers that were christians. Nor is their belief that of Jesus. While right wing christians, law minded, control minded, humilation minded, christians, seek to remake jesus in their image as a purveyor of guilt against sinners, the stories handed to us in the god spells are of a man-god who consideres the (so-called) sinner and has empathy for them. Cares. The ones he repudiated were those who laid burdens on the sinners. Jesus was there to encourage and convert if they listened to him. He did not force anyone nor advocate changing roman laws to force non-believers to follow his moral code.

    Goddess Bless (thyself)

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. U.S.
    143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226
    February 29, 1892

    "These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

    What more can one say?

    ""....Modern right wing christians have hijacked both Jesus, and the founding fathers. Their version of Christianity was most certainly not that practiced and believed by all or even most of the founding fathers that were Christians. Nor is their belief that of Jesus. While right wing Christians, law minded, control minded, humiliation minded, Christians...""" (Spelling corrected)

    Ahhh, we finally get to the "agenda." Thanks.

    Your statements and claim truly "begs the question:" What is the difference between "Modern Right Wing" Religion and those systems of belief during the Founding Father's day? Are you implying that the Fathers would agree with Same Sex Marrage? Banning Prayer in School? Abortions on demand (and funded with Tax payers money)?

    I submit to you, Christianity, back then, was a lot more "restrictive" on all levels, than today.
    The Fathers allowed Sunday Church in the Government Buildings, and many other religious "goings on" with Government....Can you do that today? Who has hijacked who?

    So, your claim does not stand up. It is sad that despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Radical Left (Franklin would call them "Infidels") continues to re-write history.....

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit