Skip to comments.The Founding Fathers and Deism
Posted on 11/08/2004 11:41:14 AM PST by Conservative Coulter Fan
click here to read article
I'm totally happy with them now. If I'd been there with them, I know I'd be totally happy with them then, too.
...since most of the original states indeed had state religions
Huh? Where do you come up with that piece of information?
I can trace my family lines back to the frontier preachers who traveled the eastern states and setup the first churches. They then migrated to the midwest and did the same. Then on to the west coast. In all my research and readings, I have yet to find any evidence of there being "state religions". Please, if you have such I'd be more than happy to have it. And don't give me that krap(tm) about Christianity being the "state religion".
Some of the colonies may have been started by a group from a similar religious teaching or belief, but a "state religion" would have been anathema to those who were founding this nation. They had literally left England and Europe because of the "state religions" and I doubt they were amenable to establishing more of the same. As I have written before, "Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed."
Of the 13 original states 6, Connecticut, Georgia, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and South Carolina, had established religions.
But don't take my word for it, let your fingers do the walking.
I like David Barton. He tells it like it is.
God's honest truth. :-}
In addition to the earlier quote from Jefferson I add this one from John Adams:
The clergy of this province are a virtuous, sensible, and learned set of men and they do not take their sermons from newspapers, but the Bible; unless it be a few, who preach passive obedience. These are not generally curious enough to read Hobbes. It is the duty of the clergy to accommodate their discourses to the times.
To Adams, a good preacher would be in touch with the Enlightenment and will have read Hobbes. Certainly any indifferent and unlearned minister who preached passive obedience could not have been expounding the Biblical text; such a man (in Adams'eyes) must have gathered his sermon material from the newspapers.
The evidence against Adams and Jefferson in their own words irrefutably demonstrates that they rejected orthodox Christianity. The evidence against Madison and Henry, though less conclusive than that against Adams and Jefferson, is compelling.
None of this is intended to disparage any of these men in regard to their usefulness in the founding of our nation. But again, we must deal with the facts;
their embrace of Christianity on a personal level was comparable to that of John Kerry.
I think that you are mis-informed. You seem to not understand the concept of the Colonies vs the States. If you read back through the history, there were indeed Puritans in Mass., and others in the other states. They did indeed have established religions in some colonies throughout the 1600's and part of the 1700's. In fact, it is during that time period that my forebears raised the rabble and splintered off from the "established doctrine" and began their frontier ministries, establishing the first churches in many eastern colonies- what were to become states.
However, after the Revolution, when the states began writing and passing their state Constitutions - which by definition changed them from Colonies to States - I find no evidence of "state religions". There were some religious taxes - "general assessment schemes" - and states exclaimed the need for "piety, religion and morality" as the basis for "the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government", and other strong rhetorical support for religion, but I can see no history of any actual state established religions. Certainly after the First Amendment to the US Constitution was passed in 1789 and ratified in 1791, such establishment of religion was barred by the First Amendment.
By the time of the establishment of the Colonies as States, there had been major schisms in the various sanctioned religions, and the frontier ministers had already carried the "Great Awakening" throughout the southern Colonies.
If you have some accurate source - other than an evangelical website stating "Educated Americans know that some of the original states did, in fact, have established religions when they ratified the Constitution, I'd certainly like to see it.
I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provisions that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General Government. It must then rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority. - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808 (emphasis added)The First Amendment only proscribes an establishment of a national religion. The Bill of Rights did not apply to the state governments before the passage of the fourteenth amendment.
The constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states. Each state established a constitution for itself, and, in that constitution, provided such limitations and restrictions on the powers of its particular government as its judgment dictated...
These amendments demanded security against the apprehended encroachments of the general government--not against those of the local governments.
In compliance with a sentiment thus generally expressed, to quiet fears thus extensively entertained, amendments were proposed by the required majority in congress, and adopted by the states. These amendments contain no expression indicating an intention to apply them to the state governments. This court cannot so apply them. - Chief Justice Marshall, Barron v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) (emphasis added)
Quite simply, the Establishment Clause is best understood as a federalism provision--it protects state establishments from federal interference but does not protect any individual right.
Moreover, incorporation of this putative individual right leads to a peculiar outcome: It would prohibit precisely what the Establishment Clause was intended to protect--state establishments of religion.
(noting that "the Fourteenth Amendment has somehow absorbed the Establishment Clause, although it is not without irony that a constitutional provision evidently designed to leave the States free to go their own way should now have become a restriction upon their autonomy") - Justice Thomas, Elk Grove v. Newdow, June 14, 2004 (emphasis added)
Perhaps you should spend more time listening and learning rather than slandering the Founders of this Christian nation and distorting history. Then you might not be so boastful about your ignorance. I don't mind educating you and setting the record straight though. To learn about the history of America's established state churches and their disestablishment, you might start here.
I don't think Barton ever called Tom Paine a Christian, just the opposite.
Perhaps you are hopelessly ill informed. Several of the states did not disestablish until well into the 19th Century. These aren't fantasies friend, they are facts. I would suggest you widen your horizons to include readings by other than those with an axe to grind about religion because it is evident that you have been Goebbelized.
The Congregational Church was the established church in Connecticut before 1818. Throughout the eighteenth century all residents of each town were required to attend Sunday services and to pay taxes to support the local Congregational Church, unless a certificate was signed by an officer of a dissenting church (such as a Baptist, Episcopal, or Quaker) stating that a certain resident regularly attended and supported that church. In May 1791, a statute was passed requiring the certificates to be signed by two civil officers or a justice of the peace rather than by the officer of the dissenting church. Since the civil officers were Congregationalists, the effect of this new law was to harass the dissenters in their attempts to avoid supporting the established church. This caused a great uproar, and five months later the law was repealed and a new law was passed allowing the dissenter himself to sign the certificate but requiring him to file it with the established church. This caused a new uproar, for the dissenting churches had no way of determining who was supposed to support them except by complaining to the established churches. Nevertheless the certificate law was not changed and continued to outrage dissenters as they picked up supporters in the early nineteenth century.
Until 1814, the Episcopalians, wealthier and more influential than the other dissenters, were not particularly upset with the existing order. About 10% of the state was Episcopalian, and the Federalist majority was generally solicitous of their needs. For example, the laws were amended in the 1790s to accommodate Episcopal fasts and feasts, a problem since Episcopal fast days occasionally occurred on Congregational feast days, and vice versa.
From 1804 to 1812, the Episcopalians unsuccessfully attempted to convince the General Assembly to charter Cheshire Academy as an Episcopal college; these rebuffs did not convince the Episcopalians to desert the Federalist cause, but in 1814 the General Assembly completely alienated the Episcopalians by the manner in which a new bank was chartered. The new bank, The Phoenix Bank of Hartford, was charted and $60,000 paid to the state. Since Episcopalians were involved in the new bank, half of the payment to the state was supposed to be appropriated to the Episcopal church. What actually happened was that the General Assembly appropriated $20,000 to Yale College (a Congregational institution) and kept the rest in the state treasury. After 1814 most Episcopalians voted for the Republicans.
While the Episcopalian change of heart was hardly for an ennobling reason, the final push for disestablishment was highly principled. By the 1810s an established church in the United States was an anachronism. It never existed in Rhode Island and was abolished elsewhere by the 1780s. When the War of 1812 ended unexpectedly in late 1814, the U.S. Treasury was left with a large sum of money to return to the states. Connecticut eventually received $145,000, and the Federalist General Assembly in October 1816 decided to distribute it as follows: 1/3 to the Congregationalists, 1/7 to Yale (also Congregationalist), 1/7 to the Episcopalians, 1/8 to the Baptists, 1/12 to the Methodists, and the balance to the state treasury.
This Act provoked outrage from all the dissenters, who nobly accused the General Assembly of trying to bribe them to perpetuate enforced support of religion, and of ignoring the minor sects, such as the Quakers. They also complained, somewhat less nobly, that the percentage split favored the Congregationalists. As a result of this legislation the Republicans allied with the dissenters to form the Toleration Ticket for the Spring 1816 elections. Oliver Wolcott ran for Governor and Jonathan Ingersoll, a prominent Episcopalian, ran for Lieutenant Governor. Wolcott narrowly lost, but Ingersoll won, as the Republicans received virtually the entire vote of the dissenters. In the Spring 1817 election, this was sufficient for Wolcott to defeat the Federalist candidate for the first time in Connecticut history. The margin of victory was a mere 600 votes. The next Spring Governor Wolcott called for a constitutional convention, one of whose lasting achievements was the disestablishment of the Congregational Church. - LINK
The struggle for religious freedom and disestablishment in Massachusetts is equally interesting and of greater duration than the events in Connecticut. Beginning in 1631, the General Court decreed that unless one were a Congregationalist, he could not vote or be in politics. This decree was one of the major factors of Roger Williams' banishment to Rhode Island. In 1638, the General Court ordered a tax on all who did not voluntarily contribute to the Congregationalist minister's support. In 1672, the General Assembly ordered banishment for "broaching and maintaining damnable heresies," which essentially constituted anything contrary to the teachings of the established church. Although toleration was extended to all Protestant Christians in 1691, it did not extend to Roman Catholics.
From about the turn of the Eighteenth Century up until the time of the Revolutionary War, non-established religious sects succeeded in some of their efforts to chip away at the wall of church establishment. However, by 1776, according to General Court decree, anyone choosing to settle a town along the frontier had to build a Congregational church and support its minister. Thus, Baptists and nonconformist settlers often had to build two churches and support two ministers. This only contributed to the great strife between Congregationalists and nonconformists.
Although the Congregational Church was still highly favored, changes in attitude were apparent. In 1779, the town of Pittsfield sent a Congregational minister and a Baptist minister to the constitutional convention. In 1780, the Massachusetts Provincial Congress adopted the following constitution and Declaration of Rights. The Declaration of Rights was largely the work of John Adams. It is highly possible, from the contents of clause II, that Adams was influenced by the Virginia Declaration. Although this Declaration of Rights is a rather conservative document, it was a big step for Massachusetts, who had struggled for more than a century to obtain religious freedom. It was not until 1831 that the Massachusetts state legislature voted in favor of disestablishment. In 1833, the third article of the 1780 Declaration of Rights was finally replaced. The new article promoted religious freedom and prohibited any form of establishment. LINK
Paine later published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, 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 Paine say what he will. Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, [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.
Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was absurd and impious; Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as blasphemous writings against the Christian religion; John Witherspoon said that Paine was ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith; John Quincy Adams declared that Mr. Paine has departed altogether from the principles of the Revolution"; and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelationa full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as the puny efforts of Paine.
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? Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, noted, He has the impudence and effrontery 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. John Jay, an 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. In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that 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.
Amen and ping!
I concur. I'll also note that the author of this article is a pseudo-historian snake oil salesman and a flaming bigot who uses his pseudo-histories and religion for political gain. Barton is not exactly the most credible or trustworthy source by any measure.
Yes. He does that often. Barton is (unfortunately) the Vice Chairman of the Republican Party of Texas and most of his history is very selective and very biased toward whatever political point he is trying to argue at the moment
I learned this in grade school in the early 50's. I am constantly amazed at the left's denial that this is a christian nation and their endless use of the phrase, "Separation of Church and State" as though it is part of the Constitution.
He doesn't answer email - I know that from first hand experience. David Barton is also our Republican Party Vice Chairman in Texas (and a rather lousy one at that - he's in it for self promotion and to sell his videos, not getting our candidates elected). Whenever there's an internal party election going on he pulls out his self-purported "Founding Fathers" expertise and twists a bunch of out of context quotes together to portray his favored candidate as the "candidate of the founders vision" or some such nonsense. Anybody who opposes him similarly gets labelled "anti democratic" and opposed to the "Founding Fathers." I've sent out challenges to the content of his letters several times including to that address and they never respond to anything. He has no public address at the Republican Party website either.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.