Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence
adherents.com ^ | Dec 2005 | adherents.com

Posted on 07/04/2010 4:53:44 PM PDT by NoLibZone

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last
To: NoLibZone

Clic k my screen name and scroll 1/2 way down the page or so . :)


41 posted on 07/04/2010 6:18:19 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (BP was founder of Cap & Trade Lobby and is linked to John Podesta, The Apollo Alliance and Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

Exactly.


42 posted on 07/04/2010 6:21:03 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (BP was founder of Cap & Trade Lobby and is linked to John Podesta, The Apollo Alliance and Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
"Hey, there are no Lutherans either."

There were two. Click my screen name and scroll more than 1/2 way down.

43 posted on 07/04/2010 6:29:23 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (BP was founder of Cap & Trade Lobby and is linked to John Podesta, The Apollo Alliance and Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: hellbender; I_Like_Spam

Roger Williams and the 11 or 12 men with him (including Benedict Arnold’s ancestor), did found the first Baptist church in America in 1638.

Baptists are now the most numerous Protestants, they are only outnumbered by the Catholics, Southern Baptists alone, are second in number only to the Catholics.


44 posted on 07/04/2010 6:34:10 PM PDT by ansel12 (Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone
Were the Unitarians or Universalists back then atheists as they are today? I know the Anglicans and Presbyterians weren't.
45 posted on 07/04/2010 6:38:01 PM PDT by Gay State Conservative (''I don't regret setting bombs,I feel we didn't do enough.'' ->Bill Ayers,Hussein's mentor,9/11/01)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

Thomas Mifflin, Lutheran (Calvinist-lite)
Jacob Broom, Lutheran

Thanks, I never knew that.


46 posted on 07/04/2010 6:39:49 PM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Remember in November. Clean the house on Nov. 2. / Progressive is a PC word for liberal democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Sophistry and circumlocution.

I read your post and do not see your point. The fact that the Government cannot enact and control religion has nothing to do with ‘banning’ anyone (except Muslims) from saying a prayer in school.

I read a story about a child sent home simply because he brought a Bible to school. Explain that. Is that what the founders wanted?

Football players are being told that they cannot pray or say anything religious after scoring a touchdown. That is what the founders wanted?

No, my friend, it is you who has no idea. The modern concept of the so called ‘separation’ is equivalent to a ‘ban’ on religion. (except Muslims)

There was never an intent of any founding father that religion should not be a full part of public life, government, and schools.

Their noble intent was to restrict government from interfering, forcing, or controlling a particular religion.

BTW, my friend, posting 3 pages of legal writings does not automatically make you 'right'. If you have a point then make it succinctly. Make a point.

If you can't dazzle them with your intelligence, the baffle them with your BS. doesn't work well on FR.

47 posted on 07/04/2010 6:42:33 PM PDT by 240B (he is doing everything he said he wouldn't and not doing what he said he would)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ully2

“The first Muslim Member of Congress was John Randolph of Virginia, who served in Congress from 1799-1834. Significantly, Francis Scott Key, author of the “Star Spangled Banner,” befriended Randolph and faithfully shared Christ with him. Randolph eventually converted from Islam to Christianity and became a strong personal advocate for his newfound faith. (Key also shared Christianity with other Muslims, and even bought them copies of the Christian Bible printed in Arabic.)”

—From “An Historical Perspective on a Muslim Being Sworn into Congress on the Koran,” by David Barton, January, 2007


48 posted on 07/04/2010 6:43:11 PM PDT by TurkeyLurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief

Context is important is it not?

You cited “The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).”

as one of your examples and I am assuming you are saying Madison defined and supported the current liberal/progressive view of “separation of church and state” I believe. But when you read the full context you may see things differently. Specifically the line just before your quote “It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the

last, that Civil Govt could not stand without the prop of a Religious

establishment, & that the Xn religion itself, would perish if not supported

by a legal provision for its Clergy.”

Full Paragraph and link to letter below.

That there has been an increase of religious instruction since the

revolution can admit of no question. The English church was originally the

established religion, the character of the clergy that above described. Of

other sects there were but few adherents, except the Presbyterians who

predominated on the W side of the Blue Mountains. A little time previous to

the Revolutionary struggle the Baptists sprang up, and made a very rapid

progress. Among the early acts of the Republican Legislature, were those

abolishing the Religious establishment, and putting all Sects at full

liberty and on a perfect level. At present the population is divided, with

small exceptions, among the Protestant Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the

Baptists & the Methodists. Of their comparative numbers I can command no

sources of information. I conjecture the Presbytenans & Baptists to form

each abt a third, & the two other sects together of which the Methodists are

much the smallest, to make up the remaining third. The Old churches, built

under the establisht at the public expence, have in many instances gone to

ruin, or are in a very dilapidated state, owing chiefly to a transition

desertion of the flocks to other worships. A few new ones have latterly been

built particularly in the towns. Among the other sects, Meeting Houses, have

multiplied & continue to multiply, tho’ in general they are of the plainest

and cheapest sort. But neither the number nor the style of the Religious

edifices is a true measure of the state of religion. Religious instruction

is now diffused throughout the Community by preachers of every sect with

almost equal zeal, tho’ with very unequal acquirements, and at private

houses & open stations and occasionally in such as are appropriated to Civil

use, as well as buildings appropriated to that use. The qualifications of

the Preachers, too among the new sects where there was the greatest

deficiency, are understood to be improving. On a general comparison of the

present & former times, the balance is certainly & vastly on the side of the

present, as to the number of religious teachers the zeal which actuates

them, the purity of their lives, and the attendance of the people on their

instructions. It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the

last, that Civil Govt could not stand without the prop of a Religious

establishment, & that the Xn religion itself, would perish if not supported

by a legal provision for its Clergy. The experience of Virginia

conspicuously corroborates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Govt,

tho’ bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the

requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success, Whilst

the number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion

of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the

Church from the State.

One source is http://www.constitution.org/jm/18190302_walsh.txt


49 posted on 07/04/2010 6:45:58 PM PDT by jafojeffsurf (Return to the Constitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: I_Like_Spam
"The Baptists didn’t really organize much in America either until the beginning of the 19th Century." -------------------------------------------------

There were not large associations or denominational structures of Baptists, but there were hundreds of local Baptist congregations all over the colonies.

English Baptist congregations had moved as whole bodies to the colonies.

The Rhode Island area had strong Baptist congregations from the 17th century. Many of those people had left the colonies from the north because of persecution toward them from the Congregational churches, which demanded public attendance at the Congregational churches. Many Baptists, Quakers, and independents were jailed, fined, taxed, run out in/from the northern colonies.

Thousands of converts of the great Evangelist George Whitefield (Anglican), never joined the Anglican churches, but joined with New Light Congregationalists, independents, and many, many of them with Baptists on the western frontier.

I recommend two books: (1)America in Crimson Red, The Baptist History of America by James Beller of Arnold, Missouri, and The Separate Baptists, The Life and Times of Shubal Stearns. The author's name for the latter escapes me at the moment, but it can be Googled. It is published by the University of Kentucky Press . Dr. Beller's book is published by Prairie Fire Press in Arnold, Missouri (hardback, high quality).

Shubal Stearns Baptist church near present day Greensboro, NC, had 1,000 members in the mid 18th century and was directly responsible for the planting of more than 1,000 local churches in the Carolina's, Kentucky, Tennessee, and north Georgia.

The Separate Baptists of the same strain planted churches all the way to the Wabash River and Vincennes, Indiana by 1825.

The Baptists of Virginia had very direct influence on the writing of the Bill of Rights, their prominent leader, John Leland, being a personal friend and confidante of James Madison.

50 posted on 07/04/2010 6:46:28 PM PDT by John Leland 1789 (Grateful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TurkeyLurkey; muawiyah
>>>> ""The first Muslim Member of Congress was John Randolph of Virginia, who served in Congress from 1799-1834." <<<<

Is this John RANDOLPH of the same Randolph family as intermarried with the Jeffersons? How did the Randolphs become followers of Islam?

Anybody know?

51 posted on 07/04/2010 6:51:13 PM PDT by hennie pennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

Great article. Thanks.


52 posted on 07/04/2010 6:55:41 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hellbender

Something to ponder there!


53 posted on 07/04/2010 6:57:59 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: 240B

“I read your post and do not see your point.”

Well, that explains everything. No wonder the country is going down the collectivist statist socialist rat-hole. Thanks for your part in destroying my country.

Hank


54 posted on 07/04/2010 6:59:23 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: NoLibZone

bttt


55 posted on 07/04/2010 7:00:14 PM PDT by Guenevere (....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hennie pennie

I have no idea...the original reference citing John Randolph’s conversion is:

Hugh A. Garland, “The life of John Randolph”, pp. 87-88, in a letter from Francis Scott Key, May-June 1816; pp. 99-100, Randolph’s letter to Francis Scott Key, Sept. 7, 1818, pp. 103-104, Key’s letter to Randolf; 106-107, Key’s reply to Randolph’s letter of May 3, 1819, and pp. 108-109, Key’s reply to Randolph’s letter of Aug. 8, 1819.


56 posted on 07/04/2010 7:02:28 PM PDT by TurkeyLurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: TurkeyLurkey; muawiyah
http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/John_Randolph_of_Roanoke

>>>> Randolph was raised and remained within the Episcopalian Church. Historians reject assertions that Randolph at any time was a Muslim; the only evidence is one letter in 1818 in which he said that as a youth he rooted for the Muslim side when reading about the Crusades.[2] <<<<<

57 posted on 07/04/2010 7:06:42 PM PDT by hennie pennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: TurkeyLurkey

I don’t think historians buy into that claim by that author, that John Randolph was a Muslim.


58 posted on 07/04/2010 7:07:00 PM PDT by ansel12 (Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: 240B
There is no ‘constitutional’ separation of Church and State.

This is and has always been a myth created by Liberals.

Wrongo, on both counts. They're just reading a different Constitution.

Article 52 [Religion]

(1) Citizens of the USSR are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is, the right to profess or not to profess any religion, and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda. Incitement of hostility or hatred on religious grounds is prohibited.

(2) In the USSR, the church is separated from the state, and the school from the church.

-Constitution of the USSR

gitmo

59 posted on 07/04/2010 7:08:10 PM PDT by gitmo ( The democRats drew first blood. It's our turn now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: jafojeffsurf

Sorry I do not agree a theocracy is freedom. Freedom allows anyone to believe and worship as they choose, which means Christians are free to practice their religion and worship in any way they choose. Your view will oppress all those who do not believe as you do, and choose to worship God, or not, as they choose.

If you hate individual liberty so much, perhaps your should be a Muslim.

I’d die to preserve your freedom to believe and worship as you belive and choose, It’s obvious you would have me die if I do not embrace your beliefs. May your God have mercy on your enslaving soul.

Hank


60 posted on 07/04/2010 7:09:33 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-117 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson