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

Skip to comments.

Jefferson/Madison/Franklin Hated God ! ?
none | may 26 2005 | Vanity post

Posted on 05/29/2005 3:58:59 PM PDT by Para-Ord.45

Having a go round with an atheist who flung this at me.

Can anyone expound on the overall context and meaning ?

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"--John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson

"But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legaends, hae been blended with both Jewish and Chiistian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed.--John Adams in a letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_, John A. Haught

"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." --John Adams

Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758

"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires no worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it." -- Benjamin Franklin, _Articles_Of_Belief_and_Acts_of_Religion_, Nov.20, 1728

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity." -- Benjamin Franklin , _Works_ Vol.VII, p.75

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects of Christianity, we shall find few that have not in turns been persecutors and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution on the Roman church, but preactied i on the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice both here (England) and in New England"--Benjamin Franklin, _Poor_Richard_, 1758

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one." -- Benjamin Franklin, _2000_Years_of_Disbelief_ by James A. Haught

"Religion I found to be without any tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serves principally to divide us and make us unfriendly to one another."--Benjamin Franklin

Thomas Jefferson

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are serviley crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blind faith." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."--Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association on Jan. 1, 1802, _The_Writings_of_Thomas_Jefferson_Memorial_Edition_, edited by Lipscomb and Bergh, 1903-04, 16:281

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."--Thomas Jefferson, _Notes_on_Virginia_, _Jefferson_the_President:_First_Term_1801-1805_, Dumas Malon, Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191

"...no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise.. affect their civil capacities."--Thomas Jefferson, _Statute_for_Religious_Freedom_, 1779, _The_Papers_of_Thomas_Jefferson_, edited by Julron P. Boyd, 1950, 2:546


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: foundingfathers
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-241 next last
To: jwalsh07
The Constitution IS the supreme law of the USA.


______________________________________



I didn't think so. But I'd think if you were gonna embrace the Constitution, which I think is a goos thing, you'd become familiar with it. Read Article 6, Clause 2.
88 jwalsh07


______________________________________



Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Do you have a point?
93 rmmcdaniell


______________________________________



The usual observation made by one of FR's 'states rights' crowd is that somehow our States are not obligated to support the individual rights outlined in the Constitution/BOR's.
- Apparently jwalsh07 forgot to include that one in his pointless post at 88.
109 P_A_I


______________________________________



jwalsh:
Which is nice but totally divorced from reality.

The usual nonsense from libertarians who have nothing against rules and laws as long as they are your rules and laws and enforced by an overly strong central government.






Glad to see you have regained your grasp on Constitutional realities.
-- Now you need to work on the irrational, ludicrous view you have about libertarians supporting authoritarian governments.
151 posted on 05/30/2005 8:55:16 AM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
"Listing people by parish and probaby were because they were buried in this or that cemetary does not prove or disprove what faith they were, if any."

Dream on. The Framers knew that mere men (including professing Christians) couldn't be en trusted with absolute power - that's why they separated the powers and undergirded them with an objective rule of law.

This is the Scripture that underlies America's Founding documents (read it and weep):

"Jesus did not commit himself to them because he knew ALL men ... he knew what was in man..." [John 2:24]

A HREF="http://www.emory.edu/EMORY_REPORT/erarchive/1999/November/ernovember.29/11_29_99hamilton.html">Emory Report November 29, 1999 Volume 52, No. 13

"...Marci Hamilton ... [is] a nationally recognized expert on constitutional and copyright law. ....

Her forthcoming book, Copyright and the Constitution, examines the historical and philosophical underpinnings of copyright law and asserts that the American "copyright regime" is grounded in Calvinism, resulting in a philosophy that favors the product over the producer.

Calvinism? Hamilton's interest in the intersection of Calvinist theology and political philosophy emerged early in her career when she began reading the work of leading constitutional law scholars. She was puzzled by their "theme of a system of self-rule." "They talked about it as if it were in existence," she said. "My gut reaction was that direct democracy and self-rule are a myth that doesn't really exist."

What Hamilton found was that a "deep and abiding distrust of human motives that permeates Calvinist theology also permeates the Constitution." Her investigation of that issue has led to another forthcoming book, tentatively titled The Reformed Constitution: What the Framers Meant by Representation.

That our country's form of government is a republic instead of a pure democracy is no accident, according to Hamilton. The constitutional framers "expressly rejected direct democracy. Instead, the Constitution constructs a representative system of government that places all ruling power in the hands of elected officials."

And the people? Their power is limited to the voting booth and communication with their elected representatives, she said.

"The Constitution is not built on faith in the people, but rather on distrust of all social entities, including the people." ...

..Two of the most important framers, James Wilson and James Madison, were steeped in Presbyterian precepts.

It is Calvinism, Hamilton argued, that "more than any other Protestant theology, brings together the seeming paradox that man's will is corrupt by nature but also capable of doing good." In other words, Calvinism holds that "we can hope for the best but expect the worst from each other and from the social institutions humans devise."

"Neither Calvin nor the framers stop at distrust, however," Hamilton said. "They also embrace an extraordinary theology of hope. The framers, like Calvin, were reformers." -Elaine Justice bttt

152 posted on 05/30/2005 9:26:53 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Bad news for atheists: Postmoderns reject all meta-narratives including macro-evolution. Hahahaha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

"Listing people by parish and probaby were because they were buried in this or that cemetary does not prove or disprove what faith they were, if any." ~ muggs99

Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin (1540) http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-cvinst.html Calvin's magnum opus. The most celebrated American historian, George Bancroft, called Calvin "the father of America," and added: "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty." To John Calvin and the Genevan theologians, President John Adams credited a great deal of the impetus for religious liberty (Adams, WORKS, VI:313). This document includes a justification for rebellion to tyrants by subordinate government officials; this particular justification was at the root of the Dutch, English, and American Revolutions.


Works of Martin Luther http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/wittenberg-luther.html , The father of the Protestant Reformation, his principles were a major part of the American colonists' worldview.

On Secular Authority, Luther (1523). http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/secauth.html This document started the political discussion about religious liberty which led to the American Revolution. In this document Luther sets forth the idea of "two kingdoms," one is political and the other is spiritual, and the two ought be separate. President James Madison commended this "due distinction, to which the genius and courage of Luther led the way, between what is due to Caesar and what is due to God." (Madison to F.L. Schaeffer, December 3, 1821 http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/madisonluther.html ).

The Bondage of the Will, Luther (1524) http://www.truecovenanter.com/truelutheran/luther_bow.html . Luther claimed that this particular document was the cornerstone of the Protestant Reformation; it argues the idea of predestination and God's sovereignty, two principles which were paramount to many of the American colonists.

The Act of Supremacy, Henry VIII (1534) http://www.britainexpress.com/History/tudor/supremacy-henry-text.htm . By this act, the English Reformation began, and the pope was stripped of his jurisdiction over the English Church. This allowed Lutheran principles to make their way into the English church, and led to the birth of Puritanism.


153 posted on 05/30/2005 9:29:42 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Bad news for atheists: Postmoderns reject all meta-narratives including macro-evolution. Hahahaha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

"Listing people by parish and probaby were because they were buried in this or that cemetary does not prove or disprove what faith they were, if any." ~ muggs99

Excerpt from the item below:

"To mention all the passages in sacred writ which prove that the Hebrew government, tho’ a theocracy, was yet as to the outward part of it, a free republic, and that the sovereignty resided in the people, would be to recite a large part of it’s history. . . .

Such was the civil constitution of the Hebrew nation, till growing weary of the gift of heaven, they demanded a king...." bttt

*

A Sermon on the Day of the Commencement of the Constitution

Rev. Samuel Cooper

October 25, 1780

Their Congregation shall be established before me: and their Nobles shall be of themselves, and their Governor shall proceed from the mist of them.

Jeremiah 30:20, 21

Nothing can be more applicable to the solemnity in which we are engaged, than this passage of sacred writ.

The prophecy seems to have been made for ourselves, it is so exactly descriptive of that important, that comprehensive, that essential civil blessing, which kindles the lustre, and diffuses the joy of the present day.

Nor is this the only passage of holy scripture that holds up to our view a striking resemblance between our own circumstances and those of the ancient Israelites; a nation chosen by God a theatre for the display of some of the most astonishing dispensations of his providence.

Like that nation we rose from oppression, and emerged "from the House of Bondage."

Like that nation we were led into a wilderness, as a refuge from tyranny, and a preparation for the enjoyment of our civil and religious rights.

Like that nation we have been pursued through the sea, by the armed hand of power, which, but for the signal interpositions of heaven, must before now have totally defeated the noble purpose of our emigration.

And, to omit many other instances of similarity, like that nation we have been ungrateful to the Supreme Ruler of the world, and too "lightly esteemed the Rock of our Salvation"; accordingly, we have been corrected by his justice, and at the same time remarkably supported and defended by his mercy.

So that we may discern our own picture in the figure of the ancient church divinely exhibited to Moses in vision, "a bush burning and not consumed."

This day, this memorable day, is a witness, that the Lord, he whose "hand maketh great, and giveth strength unto all, hath not forsaken us, nor our God forgotten us."

This day, which forms a new era in our annals, exhibits a testimony to all the world, that contrary to our deserts, and amidst all our troubles, the blessing promised in our text to the afflicted seed of Abraham is come upon us; "Their Nobles shall be of themselves, and their Governor shall proceed from the midst of them.". . .

To mention all the passages in sacred writ which prove that the Hebrew government, tho’ a theocracy, was yet as to the outward part of it, a free republic, and that the sovereignty resided in the people, would be to recite a large part of it’s history. . . .

Such was the civil constitution of the Hebrew nation, till growing weary of the gift of heaven, they demanded a king. After being admonished by the prophet Samuel of the ingratitude and folly of their request, they were punished in the grant of it. Impiety, corruption and disorder of every kind afterwards increasing among them, they grew ripe for the judgments of heaven in their desolation and captivity. Taught by these judgments the value of those blessings they had before despised, and groaning under the hand of tyranny more heavy than that of death, they felt the worth of their former civil and religious privileges, and were prepared to receive with gratitude and joy a restoration not barely to the land flowing with milk and honey, but to the most precious advantage, they ever enjoyed in that land, their original constitution of government. They were prepared to welcome with the voice of mirth and thanksgiving the re-establishment of their congregations; nobles chosen from among themselves, and a governor proceeding from the midst of them.

Such a constitution, twice established by the hand of heaven in that nation, so far as it respects civil and religious liberty in general, ought to be regarded as a solemn recognition from the Supreme Ruler himself of the rights of human nature. Abstracted from those appendages and formalities which were peculiar to the Jews, and designed to answer some particular purposes of divine Providence, it points out in general what kind of government infinite wisdom and goodness would establish among mankind.

We want not, indeed, a special revelation from heaven to teach us that men are born equal and free; that no man has a natural claim of dominion over his neighbours, nor one nation any such claim upon another; and that as government is only the administration of the affairs of a number of men combined for their own security and happiness, such a society have a right freely to determine by whom and in what manner their own affairs shall be administered. These are the plain dictates of that reason and common sense with which the common parent of men has informed the human bosom. It is, however, a satisfaction to observe such everlasting maxims of equity confirmed, and impressed upon the consciences of men, by the instructions, precepts, and examples given us in the sacred oracles; one internal mark of their divine original, and that they come from him "who hath made of one blood all nations to dwell upon the face of the earth," whose authority sanctifies only those governments that instead of oppressing any part of his family, vindicate the oppressed, and restrain and punish the oppressor.

Unhappy the people who are destitute of the blessing promised in our text; who have not the ulterior powers of government within themselves; who depend upon the will of another state, with which they are not incorporated as a vital part, the interest of which must in many respects be opposite to their own; and who at the same time have no fixed constitutional barrier to restrain this reigning power. There is no meanness or misery to which such a people is not liable. There is not a single blessing, tho' perhaps indulged to them for a while, that they can call their own; there is nothing they have not to dread. Whether the governing power be itself free or despotic, it matters not to the poor dependent. Nations who are jealous of their own liberties often sport with those of others; nay, it has been remarked, that the dependent provinces of free states have enjoyed less freedom than those belonging to despotic powers. Such was our late dismal situation, from which heaven hath redeemed us by a signal and glorious revolution. We thought, indeed, we had a charter to support our rights: but we found a written charter, a thin barrier against all-prevailing power, that could construe it to its own purpose, or rescind it by the sword at its own pleasure.

Upon our present independence, sweet and valuable as the blessing is, we may read the inscription, "I am found of them that sought me not." Be it to our praise or blame, we cannot deny, that when we were not searching for it, it happily found us. It certainly must have been not only innocent but laudable and manly, to have desired it even before we felt the absolute necessity of it. It was our birth right; we ought to have valued it highly, and never to have received a mess of pottage, a small temporary supply, as an equivalent for it. Going upon the trite metaphor of a mother country, which has so often been weakly urged against us, like a child grown to maturity, we had a right to a distinct settlement in the world, and to the fruits of our own industry; and it would have been but justice, and no great generosity, in her who so much boasted her maternal tenderness to us, had she not only readily acquiesced, but even aided us in this settlement. It is certain, however, that we did not seek an independence; and it is equally certain that Britain, though she meant to oppose it with all her power, has by a strange infatuation, taken the most direct, and perhaps the only methods that could have established it. Her oppressions, her unrelenting cruelty, have driven us out from the family of which we were once a part. This has opened our eyes to discern the inestimable blessing of a separation from her; while, like children that have been inhumanly treated and cast out by their parents, and at the same time are capable of taking care of themselves, we have found friendship and respect from the world, and have formed new, advantageous, and honorable connections.

Independence gives us a rank among the nations of the earth, which no precept of our religion forbids us to understand and feel, and which we should be ambitious to support in the most reputable manner. It opens to us a free communication with all the world, not only for the improvement of commerce, and the acquisition of wealth, but also for the cultivation of the most useful knowledge. It naturally unfetters and expands the human mind, and prepares it for the impression of the most exalted virtues, as well as the reception of the most, important science. If we look into the history and character of nations, we shall find those that have been for a long time, and to any considerable degree dependent upon others, limited and cramped in their improvements; corrupted by the court, and stained with the vices of the ruling state; and debased by an air of servility and depression marking their productions and manners. Servility is not only dishonorable to human nature, but commonly accompanied with the meanest vices, such as adulation, deceit, falsehood, treachery, cruelty, and the basest methods of supporting and procuring the favour of the power upon which it depends.

Neither does the time allow, nor circumstances require, that I should enter into a detail of all the principles and arguments upon which the right of our present establishment is grounded. They are known to all the world; they are to be found in the immortal writings of Sidney and Locke, and other glorious defenders of the liberties of human nature; they are also to be found, not dishonored, in the acts and publications of America on this great occasion, which have the approbation and applause of the wise and impartial among mankind, and even in Britain itself. They are the principles upon which her own government and her own revolution under William the third were founded; principles which brutal force may oppose, but which reason and scripture will forever sanctify. The citizens of these states have had sense enough to comprehend the full force of these principles, and virtue enough, in the face of uncommon dangers, to act upon so just, so broad, and stable a foundation.

It has been said, that every nation is free that deserves to be so. This may not be always true. But had a people so illuminated as the inhabitants of these states, so nurtured by their ancestors in the love of freedom; a people to whom divine Providence was pleased to present so fair an opportunity of asserting their natural right as an independent nation, and who were even compelled by the arms of their enemies to take sanctuary in the temple of liberty; had such a people been disobedient to the heavenly call, and refused to enter, who could have asserted their title to the glorious wreaths and peculiar blessings that are nowhere bestowed but in that hallowed place?

It is to the dishonor of human nature, that liberty, wherever it has been planted and flourished, has commonly required to be watered with blood. Britain, in her conduct towards these states, hath given a fresh proof of the truth of this observation. She has attempted to destroy by her arms in America, what she professes to defend by these very arms on her own soil. Such is the nature of man, such the tendency of power in a nation as well as a single person. It makes a perpetual effort to enlarge itself, and presses against the bounds that confine it. It loses by degrees all idea of right but its own; and therefore that people must be unhappy indeed, who have nothing but humble petitions and remonstrances, and the feeble voice of a charter to oppose to the arms of another nation, that claims a right to bind them in all cases whatsoever. . . .

To the disappointment of our enemies, and the joy of our friends, we have now attained a settled government with a degree of peace and unanimity, all circumstances considered, truly surprizing. The sagacity, the political knowledge, the patient deliberation, the constant attention to the grand principles of liberty, and the mutual condescension and candor under a diversity of apprehension respecting the modes of administration, exhibited by those who were appointed to form this constitution, and by the people who ratified it, must do immortal honor to our country. It is, we believe, "an happy foundation for many generations"; and the framers of it are indeed the fathers of their country; since nothing is so essential to the increase, and universal prosperity of a community, as a constitution of government founded in justice, and friendly to liberty. Such men have a monument of glory more durable than brass or marble. . . .

When a people have the rare felicity of choosing their own government, every part of it should first be weighed in the balance of reason, and nicely adjusted to the claims of liberty, equity and order; but when this is done, a warm and passionate patriotism should be added to the result of cool deliberation, to put in motion and animate the whole machine. The citizens of a free republic should reverence their constitution. They should not only calmly approve, and readily submit to it, but regard it also with veneration and affection rising even to an enthusiasm, like that which prevailed at Sparta and at Rome. Nothing can render a commonwealth more illustrious, nothing more powerful, than such a manly, such a sacred fire. Every thing will then be subordinated to the public welfare; every labour necessary to this will be cheerfully endured, every expence readily submitted to, every danger boldly confronted.

May this heavenly flame animate all orders of men in the state! May it catch from bosom to bosom, and the glow be universal! May a double portion of it inhabit the breasts of our civil rulers, and impart a lustre to them like that which sat upon the face of Moses, when he came down from the holy mountain with the tables of the Hebrew constitution in his hand! Thus will they sustain with true dignity the first honours, the first marks of esteem and confidence, the first public employments bestowed by this new commonwealth, and in which they this day appear. Such men must naturally care for our state; men whose abilities and virtues have obtained a sanction from the free suffrages of their enlightened and virtuous fellow citizens. Are not these suffrages, a public and solemn testimony that in the opinion of their constituents, they are men who have steadily acted upon the noble principles on which the frame of our government now rests? Men who have generously neglected their private interest in an ardent pursuit of that of the public­men who have intrepidly opposed one of the greatest powers on earth, and put their fortunes and their lives to no small hazard in fixing the basis of our freedom and honour. Who can forbear congratulating our rising state, and casting up a thankful eye to heaven, upon this great and singular occasion, the establishment of our congregation; our nobles freely chosen by ourselves; and our governour coming forth, at the call of his country, from the midst of us? . . .

The people of a free state have a right to expect from those whom they have honoured with the direction of their public concerns, a faithful and unremitting attention to these concerns. He who accepts a public trust, pledges himself, his sacred honour, and by his official oath appeals to his God, that with all good fidelity, and to the utmost of his capacity he will discharge this trust. And that commonwealth which doth not keep an eye of care upon those who govern, and observe how they behave in their several departments, in order to regulate its suffrages upon this standard, will soon find itself in perplexity, and cannot expect long to preserve either its dignity or happiness.

Dignity of conduct is ever connected with the happiness of a state; particularly at its rise, and the first appearance it makes in the world. Then all eyes are turned upon it; they view it with attention; and the first impressions it makes are commonly lasting. This circumstance must render the conduct of our present rulers peculiarly important, and fall with particular weight upon their minds. We hope from their wisdom and abilities, their untainted integrity and unshaken firmness, this new-formed commonwealth will rise with honour and applause, and attract that respect, which the number and quality of its inhabitants, the extent of its territory and commerce, and the natural advantages with which it is blest, cannot fail, under a good government, to command.

From our present happy establishment we may reasonably hope for a new energy in government; an energy that shall be felt in all parts of the state. We hope that the sinews of civil authority through its whole frame will be well braced, and the public interest in all its extended branches be well attended to; that no officer will be permitted to neglect the duties, or transgress the bounds of his department; that peculations, frauds, and even the smaller oppressions in any office, will be watchfully prevented, or exemplarily punished; and that no corruption will be allowed to rest in any part of the political body, no not in the extremest, which may spread by degrees, and finally reach the very vitals of the community.

Righteousness, says one of the greatest politicians and wisest princes that ever lived, "Righteousness exalteth a nation." This maxim doth not barely rest upon his own but also on a divine authority; and the truth of it hath been verified by the experience of all ages.

Our civil rulers will remember, that as piety and virtue support the honour and happiness of every community, they are peculiarly requisite in a free government. Virtue is the spirit of a republic; for where all power is derived from the people, all depends on their good disposition. If they are impious, factious and selfish; if they are abandoned to idleness, dissipation, luxury, and extravagance; if they are lost to the fear of God, and the love of their country, all is lost. Having got beyond the restraints of a divine authority, they will not brook the control of laws enacted by rulers of their own creating. We may therefore rely that the present government will do all it fairly can, by authority and example, to answer the end of its institution, that the members of this commonwealth may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness as well as honesty, and our liberty never be justly reproached as licentiousness.

I know there is a diversity of sentiment respecting the extent of civil power in religious matters. Instead of entering into the dispute, may I be allowed from the warmth of my heart, to recommend, where conscience is pleaded on both sides, mutual candour and love, and an happy union of all denominations in support of a government, which though human, and therefore not absolutely perfect, is yet certainly founded on the broadest basis of liberty, and affords equal protection to all. Warm [sic] parties upon civil or religious matters, or from personal considerations, are greatly injurious to a free state, and particularly so to one newly formed. We have indeed less of this than might be expected. We shall be happy to have none at all; happy indeed, when every man shall love and serve his country, and have that share of public influence and respect, without distinction of parties, which his virtues and services may justly demand. This is the true spirit of a commonwealth, centering all hearts, and all hands in the common interest.

Neither piety, virtue, or liberty can long flourish in a community, where the education of youth is neglected. How much do we owe to the care of our venerable ancestors upon this important object? Had not they laid such foundations for training up their children in knowledge and religion, in science, and arts, should we have been so respectable a community as we this day appear? Should we have understood our rights so clearly? or valued them so highly? or defended them with such advantage? Or should we have been prepared to lay that basis of liberty, that happy constitution, on which we raise such large hopes, and from which we derive such uncommon joy? We may therefore be confident that the schools, and particularly the university, founded and cherished by our wise and pious fathers, will be patronized and nursed by a government which is so much indebted to them for its honour and efficacy, and the very principles of its existence. The present circumstances of those institutions call for the kindest attention of our rulers; and their close connection with every public interest, civil and religious, strongly enforces the call.

The sciences and arts, for the encouragement of which a new foundation* [*The American Aademy of Arts and Sciences] hath lately been laid in this commonwealth, deserve the countenance and particular favour of every government. They are not only ornamental but useful. They not only polish, but support, enrich, and defend a community. As they delight in liberty, they are particularly friendly to free states. Barbarians are fierce and ungovernable, and having the grossest ideas of order, and the benefits resulting from it, they require the hand of a stern master; but a people enlightened and civilized by the sciences and liberal arts, have sentiments that support liberty and good laws. They may be guided by a silken thread; and the mild punishments proper to a free state are sufficient to guard the public peace.

An established honour and fidelity in all public engagements and promises, form a branch of righteousness that is wealth, is power, and security to a state. It prevents innumerable perplexities. It creates confidence in the government from subjects and from strangers. It facilitates the most advantageous connections. It extends credit; and easily obtains supplies in the most pressing public emergencies, and when nothing else can obtain them. While the want of it, whatever benefits some shortsighted politicians may have promised from delusive expedients, and deceitful arts, renders a state weak and contemptible; strips it of its defence; grieves and provoke[s] its friends, and delivers it up to the will of its enemies. Upon what does the power of the British nation chiefly rest at this moment? That power that has been so unrighteously employed against America? Upon the long and nice preservation of her faith in all monied matters. With all her injustice in other instances, mere policy hath obliged her to maintain a fair character with her creditors. The support this hath given her in frequent and expensive wars, by the supplies it has enabled her to raise upon loan, is astonishing. By this her government hath availed itself of the whole immense capital of the national debt, which hath been expended in the public service, while the creditors content themselves with the bare payment of the interest. It may be demonstrated that the growing resources of these states, under the conduct of prudence and justice, are sufficient to form a fund of credit for prosecuting the present war, so ruinous to Britain, much longer than that nation, loaded as she now is, can possibly support it.

But need I urge, in a Christian audience, and before Christian rulers, the importance of preserving inviolate the public faith? If this is allowed to be important at all times, and to all states, it must be peculiarly so to those whose foundations are newly laid, and who are but just numbered among the nations of the earth. They have a national character to establish, upon which their very existence may depend. Shall we not then rely that the present government will employ every measure in their power, to maintain in this commonwealth a clear justice, an untainted honour in all public engagements; in all laws respecting property; in all regulations of taxes; in all our conduct towards our sister states, and towards our allies abroad. . . .

While we receive in the settlement of our commonwealth a reward of our achievements and sufferings, we have the further consolation to reflect, that they have tended to the general welfare, and the support of the rights of mankind. The struggle of America hath afforded to oppressed Ireland a favourable opportunity of insisting upon her own privileges. Nor do any of the powers in Europe oppose our cause, or seem to wish it may be unsuccessful. Britain has maintained her naval superiority with such marks of haughtiness and oppression as have justly given umbrage to the nations around her. They cannot therefore but wish to see her power confined within reasonable bounds, and such as may be consistent with the safety of their own commercial rights. This, they know would at least be exceeding difficult, should the rapidly increasing force of these states be reunited with Britain, and wielded by her, as it hath been in time past, against every nation upon whom she is pleased to make war. So favourable, through the divine superintendence, is the present situation of the powers in Europe, to the liberties and independence for which we are contending. But as individuals must part with some natural liberties for the sake of the security and advantages of society; the same kind of commutation must take place in the great republic of nations. The rights of kingdoms and states have their bounds; and as in our own establishment we are not likely to find reason, I trust we shall never have an inclination to exceed these bounds, and justly to excite the jealousy and opposition of other nations. It is thus wisdom, moderation and sound policy would connect kingdoms and states for their mutual advantage, and preserve the order and harmony of the world. In all this these free states will find their own security, and rise by natural and unenvied degrees to that eminence, for which, I would fain persuade myself, we are designed.

It is laudable to lay the foundations of our republicks with extended views. Rome rose to empire because she early thought herself destined for it. The great object was continually before the eyes of her sons. It enlarged and invigorated their minds; it excited their vigilance; it elated their courage, and prepared them to embrace toils and dangers, and submit to every regulation friendly to the freedom and prosperity of Rome. They did great things because they believed themselves capable, and born to do them. They reverenced themselves and their country; and animated with unbounded respect for it, they every day added to its strength and glory. Conquest is not indeed the aim of these rising states; sound policy must ever forbid it. We have before us an object more truly great and honourable. We seem called by heaven to make a large portion of this globe a seat of knowledge and liberty, of agriculture, commerce, and arts, and what is more important than all, of Christian piety and virtue. A celebrated British historian observes, if I well remember, that the natural features of America are peculiarly striking. Our mountains, our rivers and lakes have a singular air of dignity and grandeur. May our conduct correspond to the face of our country! At present an immense part of it lies as nature hath left it, and human labour and art have done but little, and brightened only some small specks of a continent that can afford ample means of subsistence to many, many millions of the human race. It remains with us and our posterity, to "make the wilderness become a fruitful field, and the desert blossom as the rose"; to establish the honour and happiness of this new world, as far as it may be justly our own, and to invite the injured and oppressed, the worthy and the good to these shores, by the most liberal governments, by wise political institutions, by cultivating the confidence and friendship of other nations, and by a sacred attention to that gospel that breaths "peace on earth, and good will towards men." Thus will our country resemble the new city which St. John saw "coming down from God out of heaven, adorned as a bride for her husband." Is there a benevolent spirit on earth, or on high, whom such a prospect would not delight?

But what are those illustrious forms that seem to hover over us on the present great occasion, and to look down with pleasure on the memorable transactions of this day? Are they not the founders and lawgivers, the skilful pilots and brave defenders of free states, whose fame "flows down through all ages, enlarging as it flows"? They, who thought no toils or vigilance too great to establish and protect the rights of human nature; no riches too large to be exchanged for them; no blood too precious to be shed for their redemption? But who are they who seem to approach nearer to us, and in whose countenances we discern a peculiar mixture of gravity and joy upon this solemnity? Are they not the venerable fathers of the Massachusetts; who though not perfect while they dwelt in flesh, were yet greatly distinguished by an ardent piety, by all the manly virtues, and by an unquenchable love of liberty­they, who to form a retreat for it, crossed the ocean, through innumerable difficulties, to a savage land. They, who brought with them a broad charter of liberty, over which they wept when it was wrested from them by the hand of power, and an insidious one placed in its room. With what pleasure do they seem to behold their children, like the ancient seed of Abraham, this day restored to their original foundations of freedom! their Governor "as at the first, and their Councellors as at the beginning"? Do they not call upon us to defend these foundations at every hazard, and to perpetuate their honour in the liberty and virtue of the state they planted?

O thou supreme Governor of the world, whose arm hath done great things for us, establish the foundations of this commonwealth! and evermore defend it with the saving strength of thy right hand! Grant that here the divine constitutions of Jesus thy Son may ever be honoured and maintained! Grant that it may be the residence of all private and patriotic virtues, of all that enlightens and supports, all that sweetens and adorns human society, till the states and kingdoms of this world shall be swallowed up in thine own kingdom. In that, which alone is immortal, may we obtain a perfect citizenship, and enjoy in its completion, "the glorious Liberty of the Sons of God!" And let all the people say, Amen!

FOUNDER'S LIBRARY The 18th Century Sermons and Other Writings by Preachers
http://www.founding.com/library/lbody.cfm?id=486&parent=52


154 posted on 05/30/2005 9:35:51 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Bad news for atheists: Postmoderns reject all meta-narratives including macro-evolution. Hahahaha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

See:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1412896/posts?page=152#152
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1412896/posts?page=153#153
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1412896/posts?page=154#154


155 posted on 05/30/2005 9:46:31 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Bad news for atheists: Postmoderns reject all meta-narratives including macro-evolution. Hahahaha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

ROFL!
Three posts of Calvinist dogma in a row to me!
I could just as easily post quotes from founders flaming Christianity. The Frankilin and Jefferson letters are very hostile towards Christianity and clearly show that they considered Christianity a threat to liberty.

They managed to put their feelings aside and work together with Christians and I try to do the same. You would not like it if I insisted Deist dogma be the foundation of law in this country and I don't like it when you insist America must be Christian.

You are not considering context when you use quotes from the past. I attend services at the local Christian church on occaision not because I feel a need to worship, but to please those freinds and neighbors who are Christian. I contribute to their youth group because they do an outstanding job helping kids. I have recieved letters thanking me for my contributions and my name is on a plaque at the youth center. Does that mean that when I'm long gone someone will use that to prove I was a Christian who Worshipped at that church?
...


156 posted on 05/30/2005 10:41:56 AM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk
It may well prove to be like that Treaty with Tripoli the Infidels and Atheists love to cite as authoratative but is proven fraud

ARTICLE 11 Of the Treaty:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Treaty signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796, and at Algiers January 3, 1797
Senate advice and consent to ratification June 7, 1797
Ratified by the President of the United States June 10, 1797
Entered into force June 10, 1797

Do recall Rev. Witherspoon used the term"providence "quite frequently are we to suppose that by use of the term "providence" one is automatically a deist? Sounds rather gay to me.

ROFL!
Was Rev. Witherspoon gay?
Providence just means good luck. When a Christian sees a miracle, a Deist sees a stroke of good luck.
The gay thing won't work with a Deist. It's a live and let live belief and Deists really don't care what you do with your crotch or your appetite.
...
157 posted on 05/30/2005 10:59:32 AM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

ping to self for possible pingout.


158 posted on 05/30/2005 11:02:56 AM PDT by little jeremiah (Resisting evil is our duty or we are as responsible as those promoting it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Ghost of FReepers Past
They were not Libertarian in that they believed virtue mattered. They were not liberals in that they believed government was more of the problem than the answer.

I agree with you that they were not libertarians, but not because "they believed virtue mattered." Libertarians believe that virtue matters as much as any people do. There is nothing in the libertarian philosophy that discounts virtue. Virtue is as important to libertarians as it is to republicans, democrats, or any other political philosophy you can name.

They were not libertarians because that level of philosophy had not been developed as yet in their time. Refinements to the liberal philosophy would take almost a hundred years after the founding fathers. Connecting that new refined liberalism to libertarianism would take an additional fifty years. Of course they were not libertarians.

The founding fathers were however liberals. The current misuse of the word "liberal" may have been popularized by a few extremists, but that popularization is not strong enough to overcome its historic definition. When a child first reads it, looks it up in a dictionary, that meaning will hold far longer than any ill conceived popular mis-usage.

159 posted on 05/30/2005 11:25:10 AM PDT by jackbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

You're confused or deliberately dragging a red herring across the trail to throw people off track. You asked me for proof of the religious underpinnings that informed America's Framers, and I gave them to you.

The fact that you aren't emotionally equipped to face the facts of history when they're presented to you is __your__ problem.

BTTT for the facts again:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1412896/posts?page=129#129
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1412896/posts?page=130#130
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1412896/posts?page=152#152
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1412896/posts?page=153#153
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1412896/posts?page=154#154


160 posted on 05/30/2005 11:36:50 AM PDT by Matchett-PI (Bad news for atheists: Postmoderns reject all meta-narratives including macro-evolution. Hahahaha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: clyde asbury
[ Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists. ]

Two percent of the the 100 founding fathers were Deists..
(for the cypher impaired)->> like two(2) II, dos ..

161 posted on 05/30/2005 11:43:26 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been ok'ed by me to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

"Most extraordinary(and wholly unexplained)is the fact thatArticle 11 of th eBarlow translationwith it's famous phrase"the Government of the United Statesof America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."Does Not exist at all.There is NO Article 11 .The Arabic Text which is between Article 10 and 12is in a form a letter crude and
flamboyant and withal quite unimportant,from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli.How that Script cameto be written and regaurded,as in the Barlow Translation as Article 11 of the treaty as written is a mystery and seemigly must remain so.Nothing in the Diplomatic corresponsenceof the time throws any light whatever on the point. " -Treaties and Other International Agreements of the
United States of America,1776-1949ANd as to the United States of America being established a "Christian nation"The United States Supreme Court on Feb.29,1892 decided the Church of the Holy Trinity v. the United States 143 US 457,36 L.Ed.226,12 s.Ct.511 ". . . These and many other matters which might be noticed,add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.. . " Several other Court rulings mention
we are a Christian people, or similar terms.


162 posted on 05/30/2005 12:04:07 PM PDT by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
America, along with a majority of the world's cultures lives comfortably ignorant of the direct evidence that precludes the existence of supernatural beings; god, as a domesticating influence works extremely well in times of plenty, but when faced with diametric needs and limited resources, serves as the spark for utter chaos and turmoil.

I expect this comment to be radically flamed but God is the only hope of those who refuse to live uncomforted.

163 posted on 05/30/2005 12:11:56 PM PDT by Old Professer (As darkness is the absence of light, evil is the absence of good; innocence is blind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
.. (for the cypher impaired)->> like two(2) II, dos ..

Thanks for that. I will add it to the other messages from those who didn't bother to read the thread.
164 posted on 05/30/2005 12:12:38 PM PDT by clyde asbury (Exhuming McCarthy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
[ But Jefferson, Franklin and Madison didn't "hate" God. They sometimes looked askance at religion but you won't find any evidence of a "hatred" for God. ]

Right.. A REAL god does not need religion... why would he/it.?.
BUT a psuedo-God does need religion.. Religion legitimizes it.. and forms the basis for "the clergy".. which a psuedo-God also needs.. and the clergy demands a building(church, mosgue, temple, etc.) as headquarters, or a branch.. of "the corporation".. which they run as CEO or COO..

A real creator doesn't need all that.. to communicate with its creation.. unless that creator is a mental figment or psychological construct....

I knew a teenager that worshiped his car.. and gave rides to his congregation.. makeing him clergy to his CAR.. and the car was God to him and church to the congregation.. even LESS valid religions exist than that..

I like Jesus.. because he "DISSED" every religious authority of his time.. WHAT A GUY.. yet he tolerated civil authority as civil servants of satan.. i.e. the kingdoms of this world.. Wooo what does that make "clergy".?. He trashed clergy un-mercifully.. according to the new testament..

165 posted on 05/30/2005 12:13:20 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been ok'ed by me to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: clyde asbury; Para-Ord.45
I read the quotes and should have reponsed to Para-Ord.45..
A few posts down from post one.. Sorry..
166 posted on 05/30/2005 12:19:50 PM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been ok'ed by me to included some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Why do you want to play this game?
The hero you quote was a great American patriot, but he spent his life defending Calvinism, and was not unbiased. That's ok by me. Calvinists evolved into the Unitarian Faith. Unitarians are Deists who go to church.

Bancroft was the son of the Reverend Aaron Bancroft who was the Calvinist minister of the Second Parish Church in Worcester. After returning to the US in 1783 he preached his Arminian doctrine and became president of the American Unitarian Association.

There is much good history in your sources, but there is also much bias. History is always biased by the author. That was true then and it is true today. I could quote from other 'celebrated' sources that give differant views, but I prefer not to play the copy and paste game.
...
167 posted on 05/30/2005 12:20:13 PM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
"There is much good history in your sources, but there is also much bias"

Apples and oranges. I gave you the history. You just don't like it.

168 posted on 05/30/2005 12:23:39 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (Bad news for atheists: Postmoderns reject all meta-narratives including macro-evolution. Hahahaha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe
I read the quotes and should have reponsed to Para-Ord.45..

Hey, no problem. I'm in a flame-retardant suit.
169 posted on 05/30/2005 12:25:11 PM PDT by clyde asbury (Exhuming McCarthy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity." --John Adams

Is it possible that when Adams was saying "Christianity" he meant "catholics", and that other Christians at the time were referred to as "protestants"?
Also, maybe he was referring to the various congregations as being too ritualized. Could he have been an precursor to modern day evangelicals ?

170 posted on 05/30/2005 12:26:56 PM PDT by oldbrowser (You lost the election.....get over it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk
There is NO Article 11

ROTFLMAO!!!
Would you like me to freepmail you the complete treaty? Or...You could just look it up yourself. It's in the National Archives.
...
171 posted on 05/30/2005 12:28:10 PM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: mnehrling

I for one believe that Walt Disney is a better role model than mohammed, (May he eternally eat pig dung)and any faith based on the writings of Disney would produce a better religion than the Islam cult.


172 posted on 05/30/2005 12:55:56 PM PDT by rock58seg (RINO"s make the Republicans MINO"s (Majority In Name Only)!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Men don't decide, God does. God is still in control.


173 posted on 05/30/2005 12:59:29 PM PDT by bmwcyle (Washington DC RINO Hunting Guide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kalee

bookmark


174 posted on 05/30/2005 1:03:43 PM PDT by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
Can judges ignore laws and treaties passed by Congress and signed by the executive if they wish?

If they contradicted the Constitution, yes.

Where does the Constitution authorize an Air Force? Where does the Constitution make rape a criminal act punishable by certain penalties?

Wishful thinking isn't gonna make your argument any stronger. The fact that you don't like that Federal Constitution as the "Supreme Law of the Land" isn't gonna make it anything but what it itself claims to be. Your arguments are spurious because they would not contradict the nature of the Constitution as supreme. If for example the Constitution forbade the creation of an Air force we couldn't have one without some type of amendment. But it does not forbid it, so its supremacy is not contradicted by such a law. Lets take the wording of Article VI Clause II and put it in a different context to see what I mean.

Article VI clause II "This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

Lets make it read...

"That the ballgame shall be played is the supreme rule; and the players of every team shall be bound thereby, the inclement weather on any given day notwithstanding."

I'm sorry it conflicts with your wish that the states have sovereignty over their own constitutions and laws, but they don't.

175 posted on 05/30/2005 1:54:00 PM PDT by Pelayo ("If there is hope... it lies in the quixotics." - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I
-- Now you need to work on the irrational, ludicrous view you have about libertarians supporting authoritarian governments.

I could be described as a libertarian (i.e. a classical liberal), and am a supporter of monarchy as the kind of government historically most favorable to liberalism. Technically it collapsed because it was too liberal. Kings can't rule with draconian aplomb of republics, they are theoretically centralized but thats not the same thing as authoritarian.

176 posted on 05/30/2005 2:03:19 PM PDT by Pelayo ("If there is hope... it lies in the quixotics." - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
-- Now you need to work on the irrational, ludicrous view you have about libertarians supporting authoritarian governments.

I could be described as a libertarian (i.e. a classical liberal), and am a supporter of monarchy as the kind of government historically most favorable to liberalism. Technically it collapsed because it was too liberal. Kings can't rule with draconian aplomb of republics, they are theoretically centralized but thats not the same thing as authoritarian.

Nothing you've written refutes my point on libertarian principles.

177 posted on 05/30/2005 2:23:06 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

You gave me opinion from various authors. Interesting but not factual documentation. Out of context and/or partial quotes do not prove or disprove anything. Best guess lists by various authors are not historical documentation. I can do the same, but choose not to. Many of the anti Christian quotes by founders were taken from letters that were more like a modern roast than the deep held beliefs of the men who made them at the time. Thomas Paine was openly hostile to Christianity, but most were not. Deists are not God haters or anti Christian.

Why are Christians so anti Deist? Are they God haters?
...


178 posted on 05/30/2005 2:51:07 PM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
"You gave me opinion from various authors."

I gave you facts from primary documents. You deceive yourself.

179 posted on 05/30/2005 3:17:05 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (Bad news for atheists: Postmoderns reject all meta-narratives including macro-evolution. LOL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Confusing church with God? Most founding fathers seem to have a dim view of organized religions as they knew of the history of the churches.


180 posted on 05/30/2005 3:27:47 PM PDT by shellshocked (They're undocumented Border Patrol agents, not vigilantes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
"That the ballgame shall be played is the supreme rule; and the players of every team shall be bound thereby, the inclement weather on any given day notwithstanding."

I like ball games so lets use your ballgame to see if we can't shed some light on your misunderstanding of my position and Article 6, Clause 2. Article 6, Clause 2 assigns Congress, the Federal Judiciary and the Executive as the Commissioners of the league.

The leagues constitution states that every ball game shall be played. Congress as the lawmaking Commissioner realizes that it is physically impossible to play every ball game in certain weather so they make rules (laws) to account for inclement weather.

The owners of the teams, think states, can not change those laws or the league rules without a league constitutional convention because the leagues constituion and the bylaws set forth by the commission are the Supreme Law of the League.

I'm sorry it conflicts with your wish that the states have sovereignty over their own constitutions and laws, but they don't.

And I'm sorry you're wrong but you are. States are not constrained by the federal government from expanding individual rights not found in the Constitution of the United States.

181 posted on 05/30/2005 3:32:59 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: P_A_I

I haven't regained or lost anything. I understand the Supreme Law of the Land clause, you don't.


182 posted on 05/30/2005 3:53:08 PM PDT by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I gave you facts from primary documents. You deceive yourself

You gave me:
Douglas F. Kelly, The Emergence of Liberty in the Modern World

Dr. George Bancroft, arguably the most prominent American historian of the 19th century
"He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of he origen of American liberty"

America's Unchristian Beginnings?
Gregory Koukl...Stand to Reason.org

The American Colonist's Library
A Treasury of Primary Documents
Keepandbeararms.com
Classical Literature Having Significant Influence Upon the American Colonists

Institute of Practical Bible Education Luther: On Secular Authority: how far does the Obedience owed to it extend?
[Von Weltlicher Oberkeit]

JAMES MADISON TO F. L. SCHAEFFER
Montpellier, Dec. 3rd ,1821
Revd Sir,--I have received, with your letter of November 19th, the copy of your address at the ceremonial of laying the corner-stone of St Matthew's Church in New York

The Madison letter is the only primary document out of every source you gave, and it is out of context. Opines from evangelicals on evangelical websites are not primary documents.
By the way, Dr. George Bancroft was a Calvinist.
...
183 posted on 05/30/2005 4:42:36 PM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick
James Madison drank.

Well, ya gotta believe in something. I believe I'll have a drink, too.

184 posted on 05/30/2005 4:47:44 PM PDT by Larry Lucido
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Larry Lucido

Good for you!


185 posted on 05/30/2005 4:49:33 PM PDT by Tax-chick (I'm a shallow, demagoguic sectarian because it's easier than working for a living.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

Why are you so afraid of the truth? i did not cite to you my opine--but a credible and verifiable source. As with the Church of the Holy Trinity ruling -- Easy to verify-but you choose ignorance. It's your loss. Just as your decision to reject God, and the evidence seen everywhere
that God has not ignored His Creation. Your loss.


186 posted on 05/30/2005 5:09:42 PM PDT by StonyBurk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: rock58seg
And of these wranglings the rationalist would take advantage in order to substitute for the ancient creed his own inventions. The drift of all he advanced was this: to deny that in any true sense God could have a Son; as Mohammed tersely said afterwards, "God neither begets, nor is He begotten" (Koran, 112).

From the Catholic Encyclopedia

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

THere are as many heresies as there are lapsed christians.

187 posted on 05/30/2005 5:23:46 PM PDT by Podkayne (Islam is a lie. Allah is not Jehovah. Burkas are evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: mugs99

"The Madison letter is the only primary document out of every source you gave, and it is out of context. Opines from evangelicals on evangelical websites are not primary documents. By the way, Dr. George Bancroft was a Calvinist." ~ mugs99

BS on both counts.

[1] I provided you with the link to just about every single primary document that is available on line ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE (500 B.C.-1800 A.D.):

The American Colonist's Library - A Treasury of Primary Documents - Primary Source Documents Pertaining to Early American History http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/

I'll even give you another link for good measure:
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/primarysources.htm

[2] "... George Bancroft, the American historian, who himself was not a Calvinist, derives the republican institutions of the United States from Calvinism through the medium of English Puritanism..."
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:HkXZqwDdX1MJ:www.ccel.org/s/schaff/hcc8/htm/ii.htm+was+Dr.+George+Bancroft+a+calvinist%3F&hl=en

Nobody could be as clueless as you want me to believe you are -- could they?


188 posted on 05/30/2005 6:12:10 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (Bad news for atheists: Postmoderns reject all meta-narratives including macro-evolution. LOL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

To the foolish, who read only what they want to into a few out-of-context and select quotations, one does not need a response. It's like taking the Matthew 27:5 quotation about Judas, "he went and hanged himself," and joining it to another scripture verse that says, "go thou and do likewise."

The lives and contributions of these Founders to the cause of liberty in a world that had been darkened by centuries of oppression speak so loudly that one cannot hear the rantings of their critics of today. Further, if one examines the entire (and I do mean, entire) writings of those Founders, one cannot make such generalizations as are found here.

For instance, what does one do with this quotation from Thomas Jefferson's 1824 letter to Martin Van Buren? "Our Saviour. . .has taught us to judge the tree by its fruit, and to leave motives to Him who can alone see into them."
Or, "The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time: the hand of force may destroy, but cannot disjoin them."


189 posted on 05/30/2005 6:27:37 PM PDT by loveliberty2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
Jefferson believed in a God, but wasn't an orthodox Trinitarian Christian. Whether he was a Deist or a Theist is a hard call, but he wasn't adverse to seeing the hand of God in trends that he favored. In his letter to his nephew, he's more concerned that his young relative find truth for himself in his own reading and researching than that he accept the pre-established Truth of Christian dogmas.

Jefferson didn't hate God or Christ. He respected Jesus as a moral teacher, and believed Jesus made no claims to Divinity for himself. Jefferson was a "Christian" in the sense of respecting the morality taught by Jesus, not in believing in Christ's divinity. Jefferson was quite hostile to the Church fathers and theologians who established Trinitarian Christianity. He was also hostile to Plato and other metaphysicians. "True Christianity" for Jefferson would resemble the Unitarianism of the day, though like other Virginians he was a member of the Anglican/Episcopalian Church, the established Church of the colony/state.

I gather that Jefferson was a Lockean empiricist who believed in observable facts, logic, and science. But for him, a Creator was very much a part of that rational universe. To the degree that Christians claim that faith or Scripture outweighs reason and facts, Jefferson disagreed with them.

I don't know about Franklin and Adams. It's pretty clear that Adams was quite outspoken and apt to express himself in strong terms. Both Adams and Franklin came out of the New England Puritan tradition, and inherited a lot of Protestant hostility to Catholicism and Anglicanism. "Priestcraft" was a dirty word, and it was assumed that the centuries of Christian theology between the early Church and the Reformation were mistaken. Rebels in subsequent generations took protest much further than Luther or Calvin did.

You can see similarities in attitude between Adams and Jefferson. What they apparently wanted was a rationalized Christianity that taught morality without dogmas -- something like the Unitarianism of their era. Washington was of similar mind. He had a strong sense of "Providence," but rarely mentioned Jesus. Being less of an intellectual, Washington didn't make the same sort of philosophical pronouncements, as Adams or Jeferson. Franklin is the one Founder whom almost everyone regards as a Deist.

A lot of the problem is that 18th century gentlemen might have been baptized or enrolled in Churches without necessarily believing in the whole theology of the denomination. If they lived in New England or the South, they were considered Congregationalist or Anglican and taxed to pay for the established church whether they agreed with it or not. And they might believe in a God without subscribing to the dogmas of the churches.

Washington and Jefferson, Adams and Franklin all believed that a form of religion was necessary for virtue, liberty, and good government. Their hypothesis was that a certain form of religion was true and would support the institutions and values that they believed in. Whether they were right or not -- whether more religion or less or some other form of faith is necessary or desireable is something we can disagree with today.

190 posted on 05/30/2005 6:32:05 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
I provided you with the link to just about every single primary document that is available on line ARRANGED IN CHRONOLOGICAL SEQUENCE (500 B.C.-1800 A.D.):
The American Colonist's Library - A Treasury of Primary Documents - Primary Source Documents Pertaining to Early American History


This is a religious website that mixes fact and fiction. Truth is, I like the site it has some real treasures but...It loses credibility by including bogus documents as fact. It is woefully short on primary documents that do not support Christian dogma. Its bias glares like a neon sign. I'll give you one example of many. The website states the the Constitutional Convention of 1787 began with prayers at the suggestion of Benjamin Franklin. While it's true that Franklin did suggest they start with prayer, his suggestion was rejected and the convention went on without prayer.

Like another? They have George Washington's Prayer Journal published on the website. Washington's journal was exposed as a fraud the very day it was first published. It is a standard Episcopalian prayer book and is not in Washington's handwriting. The signature does not even resemble George Washingtons. All scholars know this and no legitimate historian would attempt to publish this as the real thing. There are many more like this on the site.

I'll even give you another link for good measure:
This is the same webpage as above on a different server.

George Bancroft, the American historian

His dad, the Calvinist minister Aaron Bancroft, was the president of the Unitarian Association from 1783 until the separation of church and state allowed the association to become the Unitarian Church.

Nobody could be as clueless as you want me to believe you are -- could they?

Clueless I may be, but gullible I'm not.
...
191 posted on 05/30/2005 8:27:05 PM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
The owners of the teams, think states, can not change those laws or the league rules without a league constitutional convention because the leagues constituion and the bylaws set forth by the commission are the Supreme Law of the League.

See, now you are changing your position. You implied that the constitution is not the Supreme Law of the Land, because Article 6, Clause 2 doesn't confine it to that position. To quote your post #142 "So when you say the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land (period), you contradict the Constitution."

The problem is that the Article 6, Clause 2 says precisely that the Constitution IS the Supreme Law of the Land. And that it trumps local state constitutions and laws. So which is it, does Article 6, Clause 2 refer to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and indicate that it is given precedence over state laws? Or something else?

States are not constrained by the federal government from expanding individual rights not found in the Constitution of the United States.

Yes they are, assuming such rights as they give contradict the Federal Constitution. Say if a state decided to give people the right to own slaves, that Law would be invalid because it would conflict with the Federal Constitution.

192 posted on 05/30/2005 8:35:11 PM PDT by Pelayo ("If there is hope... it lies in the quixotics." - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
"Clueless I may be, but gullible I'm not."

There are none so gullible as those who fall for their own supression of self-evident truth. [Rom.1:18-32]

Here's a clue: Self-deceivers have no excuse.

193 posted on 05/30/2005 8:40:28 PM PDT by Matchett-PI (Bad news for atheists: Postmoderns reject all meta-narratives including macro-evolution. LOL)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: StonyBurk
Why are you so afraid of the truth? i did not cite to you my opine--but a credible and verifiable source.

Your source is verifiable but not credible. The author uses a childish trick to try to hide the truth. It is Article II the same as WWII. It is not 11 (eleven). The original document is in the National Archives/Library of Congress. You do not need to use the Barlow or any other arabic translation.

the Church of the Holy Trinity ruling

Yes that ruling was in 1892. The men who gave that ruling also upheld Jim Crow. They ruled that God had not created negro and white as equals and segregation was constitutional and the will of God.
Do you also agree with that decision?

Just as your decision to reject God, and the evidence seen everywhere that God has not ignored His Creation. Your loss.

I don't reject God. I am a Deist. I do not speak for God and it is my Deist belief that no man speaks for God. I reject your revealed dogma, and the need for a middle man.
...
194 posted on 05/30/2005 8:58:11 PM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI

ROFL!
Well, that's one Bible quote I can agree with! I guess it doesn't bother you to have to resort to fraud and half truths to support your cause. No comment on Washington's Journal? Silence on the convention prayer of 1787?
No request for more examples of self evident fraud?
...


195 posted on 05/30/2005 9:32:13 PM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; Para-Ord.45

Also notice that Franklin thanks God for helping him to lead a good life. Franklin does not often show a religious side, and he will explain in greater depth later on that he is a Deist, or one who believes in a usually non-interventionist God without ascribing to any particular religious denomination. We are perhaps to believe that Franklin assumes either a false humility at the beginning of the book or that he grew in faith in his later years.

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/franklinautobio/section1.html


196 posted on 05/30/2005 9:58:04 PM PDT by restornu (Apple don't fall far from the tree...Now Apples are toss from the tree..OUR throw away KIDS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pelayo
So which is it, does Article 6, Clause 2 refer to the Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land, and indicate that it is given precedence over state laws?

Yes, but the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states those powers not delgated to the federal government. Therefore, federal law can only trump state law in questions of those powers specifically enumerated in the federal constitution.

197 posted on 05/30/2005 10:03:40 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: mugs99
I think Ben was a seeker and found a lot of discrepancy in the version being preached in those day to control the flock!

I also feel in Ben own way he believed in God and continued to understand in his mind his relationship with the Creator

198 posted on 05/30/2005 10:04:35 PM PDT by restornu (Apple don't fall far from the tree...Now Apples are toss from the tree..OUR throw away KIDS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Denominational Affiliations of the Framers of the Constitution



Dr. Miles Bradford of the University of Dallas did a study on the denominational classifications that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention accepted
for themselves. Contrary to myth, the following list, published by Bradford, indicates that only 3 out of 55 (5%) of the framers classified themselves as Deists:
New Hampshire
John Langdon, CONGREGATIONALIST
Nicholas Gilman, CONGREGATIONALIST

Massachusetts
Elbridge Gerry, EPISCOPALIAN
Rufus King, EPISCOPALIAN
Caleb Strong, CONGREGATIONALIST
Nathaniel Gorham, CONGREGATIONALIST

Connecticutt
Roger Sherman, CONGREGATIONALIST
William Johnson, EPISCOPALIAN
Oliver Ellsworth, CONGREGATIONALIST

New York
Alexander Hamilton, EPISCOPALIAN
John Lansing, DUTCH REFORMED
Robert Yates, DUTCH REFORMED

New Jersey
William Patterson, PRESBYTERIAN
William Livingston, PRESBYTERIAN
Jonathan Dayton, EPISCOPALIAN
David Brearly, EPISCOPALIAN
William Churchill Houston, PRESBYTERIAN

Pennsylvania
Benjamin Franklin, DEIST
Robert Morris, EPISCOPALIAN
James Wilson, DEIST (?)
Gouverneur Morris, EPISCOPALIAN
Thomas Mifflin, QUAKER
George Clymer, QUAKER
Thomas FitzSimmons, ROMAN CATHOLIC
Jared Ingersoll, PRESBYTERIAN

Delaware
John Dickinson, QUAKER
George Read, EPISCOPALIAN
Richard Bassett, METHODIST
Gunning Beford, PRESBYTERIAN
Jacod Broom, LUTHERAN

Maryland
Luther Martin, EPISCOPALIAN
Daniel Carroll, ROMAN CATHOLIC
John Mercer, EPISCOPALIAN
James McHenry, PRESBYTERIAN
Daniel Jennifer, EPISCOPALIAN

Virginia
George Washington, EPISCOPALIAN
James Madison, EPISCOPALIAN
George Mason, EPISCOPALIAN
Edmund Randolph, EPISCOPALIAN
James Blair, Jr., EPISCOPALIAN
James McClung, PRESBYTERIAN
George Wythe, EPISCOPALIAN

North Carolina
William Davie, PRESBYTERIAN
Hugh Williamson, DEIST (?)/PRESBYTERIAN
William Blount, PRESBYTERIAN
Alexander Martin, PRESBYTERIAN
Richard Spaight, EPISCOPALIAN

South Carolina
John Rutledge, EPISCOPALIAN
Charles Pinckney, EPISCOPALIAN
Pierce Butler, EPISCOPALIAN
Charles Pinckney, III, EPISCOPALIAN

Georgia
Abraham Baldwin, CONGREGATIONALIST
William Leigh Pierce, EPISCOPALIAN
William Houstoun, EPISCOPALIAN
William Few, METHODIST






Some may say, "well, this list only shows what churches these men were members of, it doesn't show what they believed." Which is a veiled way of suggesting that these men were liars when they swore to God to adopt the confessions of their churches when they became members of these churches (most churches back then required an "examination" of members when they were received into full membership).
In the case of Franklin, he was educated as a "presbyterian," and wrote a theological defense of the Calvinist position on Predestination, but later in life he said that he began to embrace the teachings of the deists; in reality, according to his confession given to Ezra Stiles at the end of Franklin's life, Franklin embraced Unitarian ideals, not Deist. For the entirety of his life, Franklin believed that orthodox Christianity was a blessing for society, and he urged people to attend church and memorize the Catechism (Westminster).

In the case of Hugh Williamson, he was licensed by the Presbyterian church in North Carolina as a preacher and did lead orthodox church services, but later in life he too made statements which classified himself with the Deists.

James Wilson had originally intended to be an Anglican minister, but instead was a great lawyer and student of Blackstone. His views were quite orthodox, but his dissociation from the church and his lipservice to the Enlightenment categorizes him as a Deist. It is not a solid classification.

http://tinyurl.com/b9ync

Seems like some like to take liberty or a little fudding going on.......LOL:)


199 posted on 05/30/2005 10:15:46 PM PDT by restornu (Apple don't fall far from the tree...Now Apples are toss from the tree..OUR throw away KIDS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: restornu

You're right on. I don't think many in those days or today had a better relationship with God than Ben Franklin! It's hard to put a label on a guy like that. Christian or Deist, he was truly one of the greatest men in history...IMHO


200 posted on 05/30/2005 10:33:31 PM PDT by mugs99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-241 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