The article strikes me as rather fair and balanced.
posted on 02/26/2005 12:59:55 PM PST
That's because the NYT was unable to find anyone who could make a convincing and factual argument that the Founding Father's were not religious.
posted on 02/26/2005 1:06:10 PM PST
("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
Presidential proclamations are signed "In the year of our Lord". See here, for example
Fair and balanced? Perhaps. "The temperature of a lot of 18th century religion was just a lot lower," he said.
Much has changed over the 250+ years since. Social norms of the time didn't forbid your depth of feeling for your beliefs, just the public display of emotional extremes. The leaders of our country at its founding were gentlemen to the extreme. Decorum, manners and breeding were very important to them and delving into the personal beliefs of another was considered "none of your business." Being a Christian at their time frame was a basic, that was your starting point. Yes, the founders would definitely not approve of this country's present attitude toward religion.
Are you kidding? It has significant omissions on the true status of the faith of the founders that you could drive a truck through, as always with the worshipers of the Leviathan State. They seek to impose their view upon another time, a common fallacy that historians criticize except when it supports their "progressive" views. Particularly noteworthy is the usual distortion of Deism, as if it were some sort of religious sect rather than the Whig gentleman's philosophy of historical truth.
posted on 02/27/2005 2:39:32 AM PST
(Should we be more like them, or they like us?)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson