"America's Founders Didn't Want To Create A Christian Nation"

[The Laughing Man]

By "pertinent parts," do you mean "meaningless rhetoric" or "anti-[fundamentalist-]Christian bigotry?"

[AtheistArchon]

By "pertinent parts," do you mean "meaningless rhetoric" or "anti-[fundamentalist-]Christian bigotry?"

- That's what I mean by "ignoring", yes. What part of this do you contend is "anti-[fundamentalist-]Christian bigotry"? You wouldn't simply be slapping that Socratean label on him here and dismissing the meat of the post, would you?

Dreisbach doesn't expose the history and intent of our forefathers, he is merely another Christain author attempting to re-write that history. Groups such as the Puritans and Quakers were chased from England. Other groups like the Anabaptists also found refuge in America. And yes, even Catholics fleeing repression in Protestant countries found refuge here. Yes it is true that the wall between church and state was originally erected to keep any one denomination of Christianity from imposing their belief system on the rest of us. After all, in the beginning there were essentially only Christains here.

However, the founders had enough foresight to not expressly state in the constitution anything indicating that Christianity should be the guiding force for national policy. They simply erected a clear barrier between church and state. They knew there were Jews, Muslims, Hindu's, and other religions throughout the world. They knew it was possible that other peoples, including non-Europeans, might immigrate here. Yet they still didn't give Christianity any special status in the constitution.

You cite only one founder, John Q. Adams, who was a very zealous Christain, and yes was a proponent of your type of state (one which actively endorses a particular religion). However, the majority of the other founders didn't agree with him (read the constitution and its history). Yes, Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence (with help by some Italian guy...whose name escapes right now), however, Jefferson was one of the biggest proponents of the wall between church and state. He was in fact very eloquent in his belief that one must question religion; and that the state cannot be its instrument.

[The Laughing Man]

Meat? To quote an old Wendy's slogan: "Where's the beef?"

[theophobic]

AtheistArchon

Thank you for the quotes, they were enlightening, especially the one on David Barton, I'm going to chech those things out.

The following quote comes from the U.S. Supreme Court decision, McGowan v. Maryland, 1961, where the Court upheld Sunday closing laws.

"This Court has considered the happenings surrounding the Virginia General Assembly's enactment of "An act for establishing religious freedom," 12 Hening's Statutes of Virginia 84, written by Thomas Jefferson and sponsored by James Madison, as best reflecting the long and intensive struggle for religious freedom in America, as particularly relevant in the search for the First Amendment's meaning...In 1776, nine years before the bill's passage, Madison co-authored Virginia's Declaration of Rights which provided, inter alia, that "all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience..." Virginia had had Sunday legislation since early in the seventeenth centure; in 1776, the laws penalizing "maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, forbearing to repair to church, or the exercising any mode of worship whatsoever", were repealed, and all dissenters were freed from the taxes levied for the support of the established church. Id. at 164. The Sunday labor prohibitions remained; apparently, they were not believed to be inconsistent with the newly enacted Declaration of Rights. Madison had sought also to have the Declaration expressly condemn the existing Virginia establishment. This hope was finally realized when "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" was passed in 1785. In this same year, Madison presented to Virginia legislators "A Bill for Punishing...Sabbath Breakers" which provided, in part:

"If any person on Sunday shall himself be found labouring at his own or any other trade or calling, or shall employ his apprentices, servants or slaves in labour, or other business, except it be in the ordinary household offices of daily necessity or charity, he shall forfiet the sum of ten shillings for every such offence, deeming every apprentice, servant or slave so employed, and every day he shall be so employed as constituting a distinct offence."

Theophobic

[AtheistArchon]

AtheistArchon

Thank you for the quotes, they were enlightening, especially the one on David Barton, I'm going to chech those things out.

The following quote comes from the U.S. Supreme Court decision, McGowan v. Maryland, 1961, where the Court upheld Sunday closing laws.

"This Court has considered the happenings surrounding the Virginia General Assembly's enactment of "An act for establishing religious freedom," 12 Hening's Statutes of Virginia 84, written by Thomas Jefferson and sponsored by James Madison, as best reflecting the long and intensive struggle for religious freedom in America, as particularly relevant in the search for the First Amendment's meaning...In 1776, nine years before the bill's passage, Madison co-authored Virginia's Declaration of Rights which provided, inter alia, that "all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience..." Virginia had had Sunday legislation since early in the seventeenth centure; in 1776, the laws penalizing "maintaining any opinions in matters of religion, forbearing to repair to church, or the exercising any mode of worship whatsoever", were repealed, and all dissenters were freed from the taxes levied for the support of the established church. Id. at 164. The Sunday labor prohibitions remained; apparently, they were not believed to be inconsistent with the newly enacted Declaration of Rights. Madison had sought also to have the Declaration expressly condemn the existing Virginia establishment. This hope was finally realized when "A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom" was passed in 1785. In this same year, Madison presented to Virginia legislators "A Bill for Punishing...Sabbath Breakers" which provided, in part:

"If any person on Sunday shall himself be found labouring at his own or any other trade or calling, or shall employ his apprentices, servants or slaves in labour, or other business, except it be in the ordinary household offices of daily necessity or charity, he shall forfiet the sum of ten shillings for every such offence, deeming every apprentice, servant or slave so employed, and every day he shall be so employed as constituting a distinct offence."

Theophobic

- An interesting quote. I didn't find much on the internet about it, but there's one site that attributes that bill to Jefferson, not Madison:

http://www.moseshand.com/studies/Jefferson.htm

- It's possible that Jefferson wrote the bill and Madison presented it. I found this link as well that details the rest of the decision named:

http://www.mainstream.com/nhpolitics...e.mcgowan.html

- Virginia has always been an interesting case as far as religious freedom goes, since it did at one time have an established church IIRC. Perhaps Madison considered this something like what we have in Georgia today, a modern-day "blue law" like the one that forbids the sale of alcohol on any Sunday. The fact that some religious "dissenters" were granted freedom from fines and others were not is, in my opinion, inconsistant even within the context of the bill. If it's accurate, then I don't know why Madison would single out working on a Sunday. Darn politicians!

[OckhamsRazor]

I would like to make some further comments on this subject:
#1 There were other people involved in the founding of this country than Jefferson and Madison. The founders of the Revolution were people like Samuel Adams (Sons Of Liberty) and Patrick Henry (Fire Brand of the Revolution). With out a revolution there would be no country.
#2 (Factoid: The First Ammendment to the Constitution did not originate with James Madison. It was originally written as a part of the Virginia Constitution by George Mason. That version was very Christian at first (after correction it was still Christian I believe). Jefferson and Madison oversaw the writing of that ammendment.

#3 The Constitution does not define what the US is. The Constitution was intended to place limits on what the Federal Government could and could not do.

[AtheistArchon]

I would like to make some further comments on this subject:
#1 There were other people involved in the founding of this country than Jefferson and Madison. The founders of the Revolution were people like Samuel Adams (Sons Of Liberty) and Patrick Henry (Fire Brand of the Revolution). With out a revolution there would be no country.

- Yes, undoubtedly.

#2 (Factoid: The First Ammendment to the Constitution did not originate with James Madison. It was originally written as a part of the Virginia Constitution by George Mason. That version was very Christian at first (after correction it was still Christian I believe). Jefferson and Madison oversaw the writing of that ammendment.

- Indeed: `All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.' (Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason [New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892,] Vol I, p. 244.)

- But looking at this earlier draft, it does appear to stand just as strongly against incorporating (or favoring) Christianity into the government as our current amendment does, if not moreso. It does leave out Muslims and Hindus and so on, which presumably might be favored or established by law in preference to others! Which is, perhaps, why they struck this language.

#3 The Constitution does not define what the US is. The Constitution was intended to place limits on what the Federal Government could and could not do.

- The Constitution defines our basic system of laws and government, and the Bill of Rights defines our rights according to the government. But I have no issue with what you've said here... I think SOCAS is well implied in the first amendment, placing such a limit on what the government can and cannot do.

[Blemonds]

- The Constitution defines our basic system of laws and government, and the Bill of Rights defines our rights according to the government. But I have no issue with what you've said here... I think SOCAS is well implied in the first amendment, placing such a limit on what the government can and cannot do.

In reality, the 1st Amendment only places a limit on what Congress can do, one branch of our government. All other interpretations of said amendment are not implied but rather inferred.

[Blemonds]

- The Constitution defines our basic system of laws and government, and the Bill of Rights defines our rights according to the government. But I have no issue with what you've said here... I think SOCAS is well implied in the first amendment, placing such a limit on what the government can and cannot do.

I should have added that inferring things into outr Constitution is what is going to tear it apart, IMO

[AtheistArchon]

In reality, the 1st Amendment only places a limit on what Congress can do, one branch of our government. All other interpretations of said amendment are not implied but rather inferred.

- I too wish they'd been more verbose. However, the Constitution is a living document (so I hear), and we do sometimes have to interpret the meanings, as well as introduce those meanings into our current model of society, i.e. stretching "all men" to include women and blacks, something absolutely not implied by the founding fathers.

[AtheistArchon]

I should have added that inferring things into outr Constitution is what is going to tear it apart, IMO

- See my post above. I'm not prepared to literalize it to forsake the greater meaning of freedom that we draw upon it for. Doing so would surely plunge us back into the days of slavery.

[Blemonds]

- I too wish they'd been more verbose. However, the Constitution is a living document (so I hear), .

You heard wrong

[AtheistArchon]

You heard wrong

- A stunning post. Do you believe we should allow women the right to vote?

[OckhamsRazor]

- Indeed: `All men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.' (Kate Mason Rowland, The Life of George Mason [New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1892,] Vol I, p. 244.)

- But looking at this earlier draft, it does appear to stand just as strongly against incorporating (or favoring) Christianity into the government as our current amendment does, if not moreso. It does leave out Muslims and Hindus and so on, which presumably might be favored or established by law in preference to others! Which is, perhaps, why they struck this language.

The Bill of Rights doesn't define our rights. The Bill of Rights is a protection from the government of a minimum set of rights that it must under no circumstances violate. We actually have far more rights. Jefferson's concept of our rights was that our rights came from our Creator not from the government or the king. I suspect that the other founders would agree with that. In summary the Bill of Rights doesn't give you rights, the rights are already yours.

As far as the Mason quote: thank you for finding that. I think because of the first draft and it's language; that the second (I'm assuming that the above is draft two) should be understood as exclusionary of other religions and the law was to apply only to Christians. This was common in other states as well. Many states had faith tests. You had to agree with certain denominations or creeds ect. in order to hold office.

[Captain Ochre]

- A stunning post. Do you believe we should allow women the right to vote?

Not without an amendment to the Constitution (though actually it probably should have been up to the states to decide--the Constitution doesn't confer any voting rights in the first place, IIRC).