THE Founding Fathers Thread of All Founding Fathers Threads

[Gary K]

Is that the societal bar for you? That politicians “know” the Bible? That they are “religious”?

For starters, this is a very nebulous criteria and could include anyone from a Mormon to a Muslim to a Wiccan.

Secondly, the constitution forbids religious test for public office— suggesting clearly, as the First Amendment’s prototype the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom says, that a man’s religious opinions have no bearing on qualifications for public service.

Thirdly, the assertion that religious people of any stripe are inherently more moral than non-religious people have any real merit. In making this point the focus of your argument you reduce Christianity to a morality play and back yourself into the indefensible position of claiming that practicing Christians are somehow more moral than other people. I would argue, the primal idea of the gospels is that Christ didn’t come to make bad men good— he came to make dead men live.

Regardless, the Ten Commandments from which people like you claim are the central tenets of morality, are actually antithetical in some ways to our Constitution and to our Representative Democracy.

Bad argument. The founding fathers made it very clear that they believed in the Christian God. Also, de Tocqueville makes it very clear that the vast majority of the people were Christian, and Protestant Christians at that. And that they took their religion very seriously.

I see how you raise the specter of prejudice in your argument. It won't work. It's a total fail.

So what if there could be no religious test for office? That's a provision of the Constitution. That has absolutely nothing to do with the the vast majority of people during that day being practicing Christians. Ministers were excluded from holding office by the New York constitution. I've posted all this stuff already. That was to make sure there was no denominational requirement for office. In other words, no state established church. And you point to religious liberty and say therefore the people weren't Christians, nor were the founding fathers. It's a huge fail of logic.

You know, your entire argument here has already been covered by my previous posts. I have already posted a lot of evidence from the founders and from de Tocqueville about the beliefs of the people and how much they gave thanks for the separation of church and state. And how many of them were Christians. It's pretty amusing how you're taking acw's arguments and trying it against me, especially as you called him a wingnut and other very uncomplimentary terms. Your switching of sides is noted.

As to your last two paragraphs you're really exposing your socialist tendencies and how little you understand Christianity. Jesus came to save His people from their sins. That was announced by angels at His birth. The fruit of the Spirit violates no law. Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not. Be ye therefore perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect. I will write my law in your inward parts. I will replace your heart of stone with a heart of flesh and ye shall keep my judgments and do them. I can go on a long time with this.

So, not murdering your fellow man is against the Constitution? Honoring your father and mother violates the Constitution? Not envying your neighbors possessions violates the Consitution? Not lying about or to your neighbor violates the Constitution? Not cheating on your wife violates the Constitution? Worshiping only the God of heaven violates the Constitution? Worshiping on the 7th day of the week violates the Constitution?

Jesus said the entire law and the testimonies could be summed up by the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Treating people honestly, justly, and fairly violates the Constitution? Practicing Christianity somehow violates the free expression of religion that the Constitution guarantees?

You make some extremely weird arguments and when they are looked at become nonsensical. The fallacies you present are not logical nor are they valid arguments.

 

[McCoy]

So, not murdering your fellow man is against the Constitution? Honoring your father and mother violates the Constitution? Not envying your neighbors possessions violates the Consitution? Not lying about or to your neighbor violates the Constitution? Not cheating on your wife violates the Constitution? Worshiping only the God of heaven violates the Constitution? Worshiping on the 7th day of the week violates the Constitution?

Jesus said the entire law and the testimonies could be summed up by the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Treating people honestly, justly, and fairly violates the Constitution? Practicing Christianity somehow violates the free expression of religion that the Constitution guarantees?

You make some extremely weird arguments and when they are looked at become nonsensical. The fallacies you present are not logical nor are they valid arguments

You definitely have some cognitive issues going on, as well as poor reading comprehension. Discussions with you are exhausting because you either can’t read or don’t care to.

I never stated all Ten Commandments are antithetical to our constitution. I carefully stated “antithetical in SOME WAYS”— a carefully-placed caveat which you ignore wholesale. It’s fascinating to see you are at least consistent in ignoring nuance in history AND in language.

Basic moral commands against murder, lying and theft have existed in nearly every culture on the planet, and predate the Mosaic commands. These basic moral foundations for harm reduction and fairness, appear to be innate and a hard-wired part of the human firmware.

The first three commands of the Decalogue are wholly antithetical to our form of government and diametrically opposed to the Constitution. The fourth— which specifically sets Saturday as a nationalistic high holy day— has zero intrinsic moral value for our society and is universally ignored by almost all Christians in the 21st century. The tenth command formally elucidates the notion of thought-crime and tacitly lumps wives in as a man’s chattel, along with his SLAVES and livestock. Sorry, I think our Republic can take a pass on that.

 

[Gary K]

You definitely have some cognitive issues going on, as well as poor reading comprehension. Discussions with you are exhausting because you either can’t read or don’t care to.

I never stated all Ten Commandments are antithetical to our constitution. I carefully stated “antithetical in SOME WAYS”— a carefully-placed caveat which you ignore wholesale. It’s fascinating to see you are at least consistent in ignoring nuance in history AND in language.

Basic moral commands against murder, lying and theft have existed in nearly every culture on the planet, and predate the Mosaic commands. These basic moral foundations for harm reduction and fairness, appear to be innate and a hard-wired part of the human firmware.

The first three commands of the Decalogue are wholly antithetical to our form of government and diametrically opposed to the Constitution. The fourth— which specifically sets Saturday as a nationalistic high holy day— has zero intrinsic moral value for our society and is universally ignored by almost all Christians in the 21st century. The tenth command formally elucidates the notion of thought-crime and tacitly lumps wives in as a man’s chattel, along with his SLAVES and livestock. Sorry, I think our Republic can take a pass on that.

That's a joke. I hope, as you're exuding fallacies again.

I also see you're ignoring the evidence that the very germ of the republic that came into existence was set more than a half century before the so-called French Enlightenment ever occurred. That makes it obvious that the Pilgrims were far more advanced politically than all the philosophers of Europe. And that the founding fathers didn't have any necessity to understand the concepts of liberty, freedom of religion, etc... It's another fail for you as you've demonstrated how little history you really know.

Remember, my name isn't acw and I have consistently opposed his agenda on this site since I joined here. I have said consistently that the reason the colonies and the early US were Christian is because the people were Christian. Not that the state imposed Christianity on anyone. That's acw's argument. I have never come close to agreeing with acw, and your argument is based upon the idea that I agree with him. So, your entire post is nothing but a fallacy.

As it's nothing but a fallacy I won't give give it the honor of a further response.

 

[McCoy]

So, don't tell me that the US was founded on the principles of the French Enlightenment. That is a fallacy taught by those who would obscure the true origins of the US.

If you're arguing that some of the pilgrim's ideas were progressive, you won't have any argument here.

And when we use the term "Enlightenment" we are talking about a general historical movement, but that doesn't mean there weren't progenitors. Timelines are things historians use to help frame cultural trends, and help us understand how ideas germinate in society. But they aren't written in stone. Men like Milton, Kant, Spinoza, Bacon and Newton, were all thinkers who espoused some progressive ideas that technically predated and to a large degree influenced the Enlightenment period. There were great political and philosophical movements, upheavals and revolutions throughout Europe in the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries (Germany in 1517, in England in 1640, in America in 1776, and in France in 1789) that were the result of shifting belief systems on the continent.

The Declaration of Independence bears the indelible marks of the Enlightenment. For example, it's Deistic in its reference to Nature and Nature's God-- as I stated earlier this terminology does not have its genesis in orthodox Christianity. The Declaration is also unashamedly rationalistic in its claim of self-evident universal truths; individualistic in its affirmation of the equal rights of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and democratic in its assertion of the right of the people to establish the kind of government that represents their will. These ideas are often shoe-horned into mainstream modern Christianity, but the context of late 18th century reveal these ideas come from far outside Biblical Literalism. Which New Testament doctrine encourages human reason and tells men that they are fully capable of finding a rational path to the truth, without a mediator? Does not Paul tell us that the carnal mind is entirely hostile to God and his moral laws? Does not the doctrine of Total Depravity teach that all of man's faculties-- body, soul and spirit-- are hopelessly untrustworthy, polluted and corrupt, by virtue of Adam's fall? Which New Testament doctrine tells men that they possess an intrinsic right to pursue their own happiness and live life free from authoritarian intrusion? Which New Testament doctrine tells us that rulers do not possess some kind of absolute, divine right to rule over us? And that they only possess power that is willingly given to them by the consent of the governed?

Sorry. These are largely extrabiblical ideas, and if you wish to backwards engineer your modern Evangelicalism to make it look like Locke or Rousseau, knock yourself out. My hope is that in so doing, you will help morph your right wing Evangelicalism to be inadvertently more progressive. I for one, would love to see that.

However, to make the sweeping assertion that direct Enlightenment influence on our Founders is a "fallacy", is so absurd as to not warrant serious discussion. I've been deliberately ignoring this, because there aren't enough hours in the day for me to correct this.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

It happened AGAIN: I mention the 1,000+ page book "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States" and the ACLU'ers go silent.

Before I share excerpts from the book and then show what public schools were like back in colonial days, I suppose I should address this post:

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior

I know that it must be a coincidence, because you've stated numerous times to me in various threads that you don't identify with the ideology or political movement, but L/libertarians are HUGE fans of Alexi de Tocqueville. I've seen his name mentioned incessantly in numerous L/libertarian articles.​

Why don't you use the Founding Fathers themselves as a source for promoting Christianity instead of a French Jew? ​

You make me laugh. I've been quoting the founding fathers directly from their writings. Your insistence that I'm a Libertarian is funny. I take what I believe to be true from anywhere. If something is scriptural I'll adopt it. I take what part of libertarianism agrees with scripture and leave the rest far behind. That's why I'm an Independent rather than a member of any political party. They are all corrupt in one way or another.

What part of L/libertarianism agrees with scripture? I've studied the cult for years and never once seen any common denominator between the two. In fact in the "Bible and Government" link that I've posted earlier, they talk about L/libertarianism:

"Finally, let us comment on the philosophy of libertarianism. This is the idea that our system of government should allow complete freedom except in the case when one person directly harms another. Many Christians today claim to be libertarians. We see numerous flaws in such an idea. We think that Christian libertarians have been duped into thinking like liberal secularists instead of thinking like Christians. Among the problems are these:

•​

This worldview is determined by a secular philosophy rather than a biblical worldview. Even Christians frequently quote Ayn Rand for support of their theory. The fact that Rand was an ardent atheist and hater of Christianity should give considerable pause. While libertarianism is not exclusively atheistic, a Christian that walks into that sphere is​

giving the devil a foothold

, against which there is a strong commandment from Scripture (Ephesians 4:27)​

.​

• Libertarianism is ultimately arbitrary. It is an attempt to define morality without God. But as Dostoevsky said, "If there is no God, everything is permitted." Any view of government not based on an unchangeable objective standard (the Bible!) is subject to be altered at the whims of political power brokers. Christianity, on the other hand, is not arbitrary. Our website is dedicated to demonstrating through reason and evidence that Christianity is objectively true.



• Any philosophy (whether Jean-Paul Sartre's Existentialism, Darwin's Evolution, or Ayn Rand's Objectivism) that has a non-theistic foundation ultimately bumps into the problem of nihilism. This means, ultimately, no basis for meaning and purpose for life. (We come from nowhere, we go to nowhere, but somehow life in between has meaning?)



• Despite attempts to meld biblical Christianity with this political philosophy, libertarianism inevitably interferes with the individual Christian's reliance on his faith as the sole lens from which to see the world, moving him away from a biblical worldview. Libertarianism, at its core, is a non-religious philosophy. This thinking is a dangerous diversion for the Christian and can be insidiously damaging to his or her faith, indeed to the Christian's soul.



• Libertarians often define "harm to another person" too narrowly. Morality should be defined solely by the Bible..."
Read more: http://www.faithfacts.org/christ-and...and-government

I like de Tocqueville's writings. He was a highly skilled observer and a dispassionate one therefore he had no axe to grind one way or another. In other words, he had no agenda but truth. Thus his writings reflect what the US was like back then. He presented this country with it's good and it's warts and all. He pointed out the strengths as well as the weaknesses of our system of government. Therefore he is a trustworthy source.

I'm still trying to figure out why L/libertarians love Alexis de Tocqueville so much. Everywhere you look: Mises, Libertarianism. org, etc. etc. etc., are articles about the greatness of Alexis de Tocqueville. The title of his book "Democracy in America" is a misnomer itself, as the Founding Fathers hated democracy, that's why they gave us a representative Constitutional Republic.

"The Founding Fathers universally rejected democracy and hoped that posterity would never turn the United States into one. The word they used was “Republic,” which is not synonymous with “Democracy.” The word “Democracy” is not in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, or the Bill of Rights. Even the Pledge of Allegiance is “to the Republic for which it stands.”

Benjamin Franklin defined democracy as “two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

So why did they reject Democracy? Because it is inherently flawed with the “share the wealth” philosophy, which only works as long as there is someone else’s money to share. Those receiving are quite pleased with getting something for nothing. But those forced to give are denied the right to spend the benefits of their own labor in their own self-interest, which creates jobs no matter how the money is spent. They also lose a portion of their incentive to produce...

A Democracy gives us the principles of majority rules and frequent elections with options, but little more. It does not protect us from the government’s redistribution of wealth philosophy, which entitles the less productive to get something for nothing.

A Republic includes frequent elections with options. It also gives place to majority rules, but only to a point, for as your mother told you growing up, the majority is not always right. A Republic is also based upon natural unalienable rights that come from a source higher than man (for example life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)

Minority rights are protected from the majority in a Republic. A lynch mob is Democracy. Everyone voted but the man being lynched. A Republic rescues this man gives him a fair trial with a bona fide judge and witnesses for his defense. In a Republic there is an emphasis on individual differences rather than absolute equality. Such individual differences are seen as a strength in a Republic rather than as a flaw under Democracy, which equates sameness as equality.

Limited government is also a major aspect of a Republic. The government is handcuffed from dominating our lives. There is a list of functions and a clear process for obtaining additional power. Finally, there is a healthy fear of the emotion of the masses, destabilizing natural law upon which real freedom is based.

The Founders created a Republic, not a Democracy. The Constitution, as designed, is the mechanism to ensure we stay a Republic. We must demand from our leaders a strict adherence to that document in order to preserve our liberty, and that of future generations."
Read more: http://libertyunderfire.org/2010/06/...ted-democracy/

"What sort of government have you given us Dr. Franklin?" (asked by a woman as Franklin exited the Constitutional Convention).

"A Republic, if you can keep it".

 

[McCoy]

It happened AGAIN: I mention the 1,000+ page book "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States" and the ACLU'ers go silent.

You mentioned a book on Barton's approved booklist and claimed to read it. What do you want-- a cookie?

 

[ok doser]

It happened AGAIN: I mention the 1,000+ page book "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States" and the ACLU'ers go silent

did this happen on another website?

the comment section of your blog?

in your imagination only?

'cause it sure didn't happen here :idunno:

 

[jgarden]

What "aCultureWarrior" is peddling is a revisionist version of American history!

Even the Nazis were not above using Christianity as a vehicle to promote their warped agenda, the frightening thing is that many of Hitler's comments could be substituted for what is being said in the name of religion in America today!


1) I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.
- Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941

2) The Nazi Party Represents Positive Christianity

"We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."
- Article 20 of the program of the German Workers' Party (later named the National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP)

3) Adolf Hitler: Burn out the Poison of Immorality

Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years.
- Adolf Hitler, quoted in: The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872​

4) Adolf Hitler: Compromises with Atheism Destroy Religious, Ethical Values

By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society. ...
- Adolf Hitler, speech before the Reichstag, March 23, 1933, just before the Enabling Act is passed.​

https://www.learnreligions.com/adolf...-quotes-248190

 

[aCultureWarrior]

There are several websites that show how The Holy Bible and Bible related materials were used in public schools during the colonial years and many of those same books up into the 1900's. One of my favorites is

EDUCATION IN EARLY AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
AMERICA's CHRISTIAN HERITAGE

An important yet little known fact about public school education in our country is that the primary purpose for establishing schools in America was to teach everyone to be able to read and understand the Holy Bible. Our first college, Harvard, in its original rules charged “every student” “to lay Christ in the bottome, as the only foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.” and that “Every one shall so exercise himselfe in reading the Scriptures twice a day,”

(A History of Harvard University, Benjamin Peirce, 1833, Appendix, p. 5)​

. In fact, of the first one-hundred and eight colleges in America, one-hundred and six were founded by and for the Christian faith. “In founding Harvard, Yale, and other American colleges, the propagation of Christianity as a leading purpose of higher, as well as of popular education, was avowed by their founders, and by all provisions and grants of government.”...

The following books were used extensively in America's public schools throughout the United States. These books contained numerous scriptures from the Holy Bible and many references to God, Jesus Christ, sin and salvation. These public school textbooks plainly show that generation after generation of American children were educated in Biblical morals and the Christian religion was at the foundation of their learning. Other early school books with Biblical Christian contents were also used in America from the 1600's well into the 1900's, a period of more than 300 years. Read these early public school textbooks and you will have a better understanding of why the America of today is so morally corrupt compared to the America of the first Christian European settlers of the 1600's (settlers who's Christian beliefs influenced America's education system for nearly 300 years)
Read more: ​

http://www.angelfire.com/la2/prophet...onamerica.html

Looking at the list of over 3 dozen biblical related books used in the public schools of America, you'll notice the dates started in 1796 up until the early 1900's. Here's one of the books that was used:

Beauties of the Bible...Designed for the use of Christians in general and particularly for the use of schools and for the improvement of youth.
https://books.google.com/books?id=BkEXAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=&hl=en#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[McCoy]

There are several websites that show how The Holy Bible and Bible related materials were used in public schools during the colonial years and many of those same books up into the 1900's...

As per usual from you, absolutely no historical context is given for your cut-n-paste screeds, only the most radical conclusions made from the "facts" you glean and those who take issue with your assertions labeled homo flag wavers, pinkos or socialists.

Some of us who actually enjoy reading historical scholarship on various topics, enjoy reading because human history and the human beings who make it happen are endlessly fascinating, and there is much to learn about yourself in the process. A demagogue like you, only gives the appearance of eating from Barton's compost pile of suggested historical reading, in order to win a Dominionist argument and try to prove opponents wrong. What a depressing and cynical realm you appear to dwell in.

Presumably, the reason for your endless cut-and-pasting from the dark corners of the internet is to try to "prove" this:

"These public school textbooks plainly show that generation after generation of American children were educated in Biblical morals and the Christian religion was at the foundation of their learning... Read these early public school textbooks and you will have a better understanding of why the America of today is so morally corrupt compared to the America of the first Christian European settlers of the 1600's"

The problems I see with this argument are several:
1) What evidence do you have that American young people are less moral today than they were a hundred years ago?
2) What evidence do you have that learning the ten commandments from Exodus 20, for one example, makes a person more moral? Do you imagine that children are unaware that murder is wrong until they first learn it from holy text?
3) You hold a romanticized view of earlier generations, imagining them to belong to some magical period of holiness and virtue that is foreign to us today. This is known an Declinism. It is a false and largely imaginary picture. Actually reading history, tends to cure this notion. Seeing that you don't do that, I'm more than happy for you to stay as you are.

For the record, it may surprise you to hear that I actually favor mandatory Bible curriculum in middle schools and high schools. Of course, I don't support sectarian religious indoctrination in public schools, but I do fully support the comprehensive study of the King James Version as literature. In fact, I argue that it's nigh impossible to be grounded in classic English literature and even the English language ,without a working grasp of the KJV. Young adults would be enormously benefited from literary overview of Scripture-- and for added measure, AP classes reading the texts in original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. So long as the State isn't proselytizing, and students are taught critical thinking and are allowed to criticize the Bible as ancient literature, I see very few downsides to this.

Classical studies of Greek Mythology and ancient literature and philosophy tend to be reserved for AP curriculum and niche electives. These should be staple, yearlong, mandatory studies in public schools everywhere. Students receiving comprehensive education in these areas will emerge with a much stronger facility in English and critical thinking. I include the bible in that.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally posted by aCultureWarrior View Post

There are several websites that show how The Holy Bible and Bible related materials were used in public schools during the colonial years and many of those same books up into the 1900's...

As per usual from you, absolutely no historical context is given for your cut-n-paste screeds, only the most radical conclusions made from the "facts" you glean and those who take issue with your assertions labeled homo flag wavers, pinkos or socialists.

And here I thought that me showing "The Holy Bible and Bible related materials were used in public schools during the colonial years and many of those same books up into the 1900's" put the various aspects of America's Christian heritage into "historical context".

Some of us who actually enjoy reading historical scholarship on various topics, enjoy reading because human history and the human beings who make it happen are endlessly fascinating, and there is much to learn about yourself in the process. A demagogue like you, only gives the appearance of eating from Barton's compost pile of suggested historical reading, in order to win a Dominionist argument and try to prove opponents wrong. What a depressing and cynical realm you appear to dwell in.

Presumably, the reason for your endless cut-and-pasting from the dark corners of the internet is to try to "prove" this:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the feeling that you're not enjoying reading the various aspects of America's Christian heritage.

The problems I see with this argument are several:
1) What evidence do you have that American young people are less moral today than they were a hundred years ago?

You're surely not going to blame America's morally depraved culture and lifestyles solely on young people are you? (They had to learn it from adults and the culture they are being raised in).

2) What evidence do you have that learning the ten commandments from Exodus 20, for one example, makes a person more moral? Do you imagine that children are unaware that murder is wrong until they first learn it from holy text?

Several years ago I was reading an article questioning where the 10 Commandments would be placed if it was once again allowed in public schools.

My answer: "Somewhere between the metal detectors and the armed police officers at the school entrance."

3) You hold a romanticized view of earlier generations, imagining them to belong to some magical period of holiness and virtue that is foreign to us today. This is known an Declinism. It is a false and largely imaginary picture. Actually reading history, tends to cure this notion. Seeing that you don't do that, I'm more than happy for you to stay as you are.

As has been shown throughout this thread, God was the center of American life back then. While every human being and society has flaws, what's not to love about a society that put's God as their foundation?

For the record, it may surprise you to hear that I actually favor mandatory Bible curriculum in middle schools and high schools. Of course, I don't support sectarian religious indoctrination in public schools, but I do fully support the comprehensive study of the King James Version as literature. In fact, I argue that it's nigh impossible to be grounded in classic English literature and even the English language ,without a working grasp of the KJV. Young adults would be enormously benefited from literary overview of Scripture-- and for added measure, AP classes reading the texts in original Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. So long as the State isn't proselytizing, and students are taught critical thinking and are allowed to criticize the Bible as ancient literature, I see very few downsides to this.

Classical studies of Greek Mythology and ancient literature and philosophy tend to be reserved for AP curriculum and niche electives. These should be staple, yearlong, mandatory studies in public schools everywhere. Students receiving comprehensive education in these areas will emerge with a much stronger facility in English and critical thinking. I include the bible in that.

Be careful what you wish for. While I would love The Holy Bible being used as a historical document for students to study in public schools, secular humanists will never allow that to happen as their concern would be that the teachings of Jesus Christ would rub off on them and these young minds might turn to Christianity instead of abandoning it as they ware doing today.

 

[McCoy]

Originally posted by aCultureWarrior View Post



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the feeling that you're not enjoying reading the various aspects of America's Christian heritage.

You mean the guy who thinks I’m a flag-waving queer and a socialist, has also concluded I hate studying Church history in America? So far you’re batting .000. Do you have any actual friends — I mean like face-to-face contact with talking, adult human beings— or is everyone else in your world just a puerile cartoon character; an exaggerated caricature?

I love studying American history and I thoroughly enjoy reading about spiritual movements and figures in American Protestantism and Catholicism.

As has been shown throughout this thread, God was the center of American life back then. While every human being and society has flaws, what's not to love about a society that put's God as their foundation?

You have confused predominant religious language and trappings in Western cultures, with authentic Christian belief and practice. You actually think, and have tried to proudly assert here, nonsense such as because a founder added “In the year of our Lord” as the postscript to a letter, that this was somehow a clear indication of deep, abiding orthodox Christianity. There aren’t enough hours in the day to help you will all your misconceptions about history. All I will say, is if such tokens of religiosity satisfy your bar for spiritual authenticity, then you’re way more generous and liberal than I am.

 

[Arthur Brain]

What "aCultureWarrior" is peddling is a revisionist version of American history!

Even the Nazis were not above using Christianity as a vehicle to promote their warped agenda, the frightening thing is that many of Hitler's comments could be substituted for what is being said in the name of religion in America today!


1) I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.
- Adolf Hitler, to General Gerhard Engel, 1941

2) The Nazi Party Represents Positive Christianity

"We demand freedom for all religious confessions in the state, insofar as they do not endanger its existence or conflict with the customs and moral sentiments of the Germanic race. The party as such represents the standpoint of a positive Christianity, without owing itself to a particular confession...."
- Article 20 of the program of the German Workers' Party (later named the National Socialist German Workers' Party, NSDAP)

3) Adolf Hitler: Burn out the Poison of Immorality

Today Christians ... stand at the head of [this country]... I pledge that I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit ... We want to burn out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and in the press - in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess during the past ... (few) years.
- Adolf Hitler, quoted in: The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London, Oxford University Press, 1942), pg. 871-872​

4) Adolf Hitler: Compromises with Atheism Destroy Religious, Ethical Values

By its decision to carry out the political and moral cleansing of our public life, the Government is creating and securing the conditions for a really deep and inner religious life. The advantages for the individual which may be derived from compromises with atheistic organizations do not compare in any way with the consequences which are visible in the destruction of our common religious and ethical values. The national Government sees in both Christian denominations the most important factor for the maintenance of our society. ...
- Adolf Hitler, speech before the Reichstag, March 23, 1933, just before the Enabling Act is passed.​

https://www.learnreligions.com/adolf...-quotes-248190

aCW thinks that most of the Nazis were gay, so go figure...

 

[Arthur Brain]

You mean the guy who thinks I’m a flag-waving queer and a socialist, has also concluded I hate studying Church history in America? So far you’re batting .000. Do you have any actual friends — I mean like face-to-face contact with talking, adult human beings— or is everyone else in your world just a puerile cartoon character; an exaggerated caricature?

I love studying American history and I thoroughly enjoy reading about spiritual movements and figures in American Protestantism and Catholicism.




You have confused predominant religious language and trappings in Western cultures, with authentic Christian belief and practice. You actually think, and have tried to proudly assert here, nonsense such as because a founder added “In the year of our Lord” as the postscript to a letter, that this was somehow a clear indication of deep, abiding orthodox Christianity. There aren’t enough hours in the day to help you will all your misconceptions about history. All I will say, is if such tokens of religiosity satisfy your bar for spiritual authenticity, then you’re way more generous and liberal than I am.

Oh dear, has he pulled the same stunt with you as he has with so many others, implying that you're a "homo" if you dare to point out his glaring errors in logic and gullibility? Let's not even mention his obvious projection...well, actually, lets mention that.

This guy is given a wide berth from even the "far right" because of his wingnuttery...

 

[McCoy]

Oh dear, has he pulled the same stunt with you as he has with so many others, implying that you're a "homo" if you dare to point out his glaring errors in logic and gullibility? Let's not even mention his obvious projection...well, actually, lets mention that.

This guy is given a wide berth from even the "far right" because of his wingnuttery...

No question about his projection— which I’ve pointed out to him before.

Ive conversed with him on another forum for a while, and he actually seemed to turn a small corner of rationality in a recent debate we had about the Founders. Our lengthy discussion eventually got deleted at the other place and he invited me over here to continue— which I assumed was a good faith gesture. In fairness to him, he hasn’t called me a homo in a while and he does seem slightly more cordial over here than at the other place (CN).

 

[Arthur Brain]

No question about his projection— which I’ve pointed out to him before.

Ive conversed with him on another forum for a while, and he actually seemed to turn a small corner of rationality in a recent debate we had about the Founders. Our lengthy discussion eventually got deleted at the other place and he invited me over here to continue— which I assumed was a good faith gesture. In fairness to him, he hasn’t called me a homo in a while and he does seem slightly more cordial over here than at the other place (CN).

CN? Anyway, good to see a voice of reason about and as whacky as aCW can be he's not the worst tool in the shed. He's almost human at times...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally posted by ​

aCultureWarrior

​

View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the feeling that you're not enjoying reading the various aspects of America's Christian heritage.​

You mean the guy who thinks I’m a flag-waving queer and a socialist, has also concluded I hate studying Church history in America?

You must be confusing me with the Alexis de Tocqueville fan, as he seems to like name calling.

So far you’re batting .000. Do you have any actual friends — I mean like face-to-face contact with talking, adult human beings— or is everyone else in your world just a puerile cartoon character; an exaggerated caricature?

It sounds like you have nothing more to add to the thread, but then I suppose in order to add to something, you first would have had to contributed something to begin with huh?



Quote: Originally posted by aCulutreWarrior

As has been shown throughout this thread, God was the center of American life back then. While every human being and society has flaws, what's not to love about a society that put's God as their foundation? ​

You have confused predominant religious language and trappings in Western cultures, with authentic Christian belief and practice. You actually think, and have tried to proudly assert here, nonsense such as because a founder added “In the year of our Lord” as the postscript to a letter, that this was somehow a clear indication of deep, abiding orthodox Christianity. There aren’t enough hours in the day to help you will all your misconceptions about history. All I will say, is if such tokens of religiosity satisfy your bar for spiritual authenticity, then you’re way more generous and liberal than I am.

It was pointed out to me by one of you allies that it was the law to have "In the Year of Our Lord" on US government documents.

Wow, it was the law to have reference to Jesus Christ on US government documents. Yeah, we sure were a secular nation huh? /sarcasm

 

[ok doser]

Originally posted by ​

aCultureWarrior

​

View Post

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm getting the feeling that you're not enjoying reading the various aspects of America's Christian heritage.​

You must be confusing me with the Alexis de Tocqueville fan, as he seems to like name calling.



It sounds like you have nothing more to add to the thread, but then I suppose in order to add to something, you first would have had to contributed something to begin with huh?



Quote: Originally posted by aCulutreWarrior

As has been shown throughout this thread, God was the center of American life back then. While every human being and society has flaws, what's not to love about a society that put's God as their foundation? ​

It was pointed out to me by one of you allies that it was the law to have "In the Year of Our Lord" on US government documents.

Wow, it was the law to have reference to Jesus Christ on US government documents. Yeah, we sure were a secular nation huh? /sarcasm

are you on the spectrum?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

In my 1,000+ page book "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States", the foreward is written by Archie P. Jones, Ph.D. I just realized that the foreward from the older version that I linked was from another historian.

Here's the version that I own. Dr. Jones' foreward is definitely worth reading.

http://files.ccrny.webnode.com/20000...%20by%20AV.pdf

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Dr. Archie P. Jones Ph.D. is also the author of one of my favorite articles dealing with civil government/Romans 13:

CIVIL GOVERNMENT: THE NEGLECTED MINISTRY
http://vftonline.org/VFTfiles/thesis...P_%20Jones.htm