THE Founding Fathers Thread of All Founding Fathers Threads

[Gary K]

I would disagree with McCoy's definition of a Christian nation as one that has an established state religion. Why? Because an established state religion is anything but Christian in anything other than name only. It's association with the state and the state being the controlling power makes that church a state entity rather than Godly entity, and makes that state religion a bastardization of Christianity, for the secular state then rules the church and thus it's theology and all of it's ministerial leadership. In Biblical Christianity Christ is the head of the church, and that is not true of a state controlled religion.

I also disagree with acw, as usual, because he loves to attempt to make a state controlled by a church. Once again it leads to a corruption of Christianity because of the church becoming a state power.

Our nation was built upon the principles that flowed from the Pilgrims that formed the Plymouth Rock colony, not the Puritans who formed the Massachusetts Bay colony from which grew things like the Salem witch trials and other monstrosities created by mixing state and church power. The Pilgrims were in search of a place to worship in which they could work on their relationship as individuals to God. In other words, they understood Christianity to be an individual religion and that they were not to enforce their beliefs on others. The Puritans of Massachusetts Bay saw things significantly different. They wanted to worship the way they saw fit, but at the same time thought it was their duty to force all others to think the same way.

Roger Williams, who founded Rhode Island, came from the Pilgrim line of thought, and it is from that spark of religious liberty that our nation was founded. It turned away from combining state and church and accepted the idea of the Pilgrims that Christianity was to be an internal religion, not a religion of externals such as the Pharisees practiced in Christ's time.

John Adams wrote a dissertation on this and it is found in Volume 3 of his writings which the entire set of writings can be downloaded from the Online Library of Liberty. At least that is where I downloaded my copy of his writings from. Online Library of Liberty The title of the dissertation is: A DISSERTATION ON THE CANON AND FEUDAL LAW. There is no pagination in this set of ebooks but if you scroll down the TOC at the beginning of the book you will find a link to that dissertation.

Adam's dissertation, written in 1765, makes it perfectly clear that the founding fundamentals of this nation are clearly Christian in nature. But those fundamentals are completely different than those ideas pushed by acw and he clearly contradicts McCoy's sentiments too. What Adams does in this dissertation is show how the Pilgrims separated canonical law, created by the Catholic church in it's fusion of church and state, and feudal law from their political ideas and kept the best of Christian principles and practices.

Adams refers to the Pilgrims as Puritans, but when you read what he defines as Puritan beliefs he can only be seen as describing Pilgrim ideas and beliefs for the Massachusetts Bay colony kept the set of canonical laws in their belief set. If they hadn't they would never have descended into religious persecution. The Pilgrims got rid of both sets of corrupting influences in their political agendas.

I can post the dissertation itself if no one wants to download the books, but it is fairly lengthy.

 

[McCoy]

I would disagree with McCoy's definition of a Christian nation as one that has an established state religion. Why? Because an established state religion is anything but Christian in anything other than name only. It's association with the state and the state being the controlling power makes that church a state entity rather than Godly entity, and makes that state religion a bastardization of Christianity, for the secular state then rules the church and thus it's theology and all of it's ministerial leadership. In Biblical Christianity Christ is the head of the church, and that is not true of a state controlled religion...

I’m in general agreement with your objections to the fusion of Church and State powers and your points about the political bastardization of Christian beliefs.

I will only add that the definition of a “Christian State” which I provided here, is not a personal one, but is an objective modern definition based on its practical existence in our world.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally posted by aCultureWarrior View Post

So for the first 150 years of this nation's existence, the statement that it wasn't questioned that America was a Christian nation is not true? If it's not true, can you back that with evidence?

These are the kind of nonsensical arguments you allow crackpots like Barton to lead you down. This statement can neither be proved nor disproved. It's totally irrelevant. (For the record, President Adams not only questioned it, he stated categorically that it wasn't-- but I digress)

Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S.457 (1892)

, involving the application of a federal law forbidding the importation of foreign contract laborers, is notable for Justice David J. Brewer declaring that the United States is a “Christian nation.”...​

Brewer added that a legislature representing a religious people would certainly not take action against religion. He provided an overview of references to God in official documents from U.S. history, beginning with the commission to Christopher Columbus and continuing through colonial charters, state constitutions, and oaths of office.

Turning to the Constitution, he offered the First Amendment and the “Sundays excepted” provision in Article 1 as evidence of the importance of religion in the United States. He also found throughout American life — from its laws to its businesses, customs, and multitudes of churches, charitable organizations, and missionary associations — further evidence that “this is a Christian nation.”
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/724/church-of-the-holy-trinity-v-united-states

Give Barton a break and bash Justice David J. Brewer for a while.

Re: your link to Bible and Gov't-- I could go down the line on those links and refute virtually every attempt to associate a verse or verses with the Constitution. I don't have the energy or time. I'll take just one:

The site attempts to link the Constitutional concept of religious freedom with I Timothy 2:1-2. But what do those verses actually say?


Sorry. These verses say nothing about religious freedom. Going thru that link are many such very creative applications of Bible verses with the Constitution

"

1 Timothy 2:2 "For kings, and [for] all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."

Sounds like the promotion of religious freedom to me.

​

The Constitution secures the right of all people to FREELY practice whatever religion they please and worship whatever Deity they want, without penalty or fear of punitive judgment-- either from the State, the Church or their fellow citizen. This is not a biblical concept in any way, shape or form. It is antithetical to the first two commands of the Ten Commandments and it is antithetical to the New Testament commands about fidelity to Christ alone.

Except no other religions besides Christianity were ever embraced by the Founding Fathers. The writers and signers of the Constitution didn't want a State Church, i.e. the Church of England,. they wanted people to freely come to Christ.

Let's get back on track.

Cuz there's some serious David Barton bashing to be done.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

History is a very complex field of study. The traditional and conservative concept of expertise is important to me-- i.e. that people are designated with the title of "expert" ONLY thru the rigors of accredited and advanced academic study, careful research, and extensive and respected experience in the field.

Let's get down to the reason why you don't care for David Barton (notice that I didn't use the word hate this time, but it's obvious that you do).

You called him a "dominionist" in the other thread, and that sort of thing scares the h*ll out of you doesn't it?

Re: Barton video-- Give me one claim from that tour and let's stick with it.

Church services (several Christian denominations) held in the US Capitol building for close to 75 years with the the US Marine Corp band playing during some of those years. Why would a nation that wanted the Church "separated" from government use one of the most famous government buildings in WA DC to promote Christianity?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

https://www.npr.org/2012/08/08/15775...never-heard-of[/box]

what an embarrassment

I'm sorry, but since the only valid information that is allowed in this thread must come from "historians" with Master's Degrees or PhD's in that subject, I can't accept the writings of Barbara Bradley Hagerty who

"Aside from these forays into book writing, most of my career has been spent in journalism: nearly 20 years at [ultra leftist] National Public Radio, and before that, more than a decade at [ultra leftist] The Christian Science Monitor."​

 

[ok doser]

I'm sorry, but since the only valid information that is allowed in this thread must come from "historians" with Master's Degrees or PhD's in that subject, I can't accept the writings of Barbara Bradley Hagerty who

"Aside from these forays into book writing, most of my career has been spent in journalism: nearly 20 years at [ultra leftist] National Public Radio, and before that, more than a decade at [ultra leftist] The Christian Science Monitor."​

Awww, Ralphie, you've been eating the paste again?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Now that we've established that leftwing hacks at National Public Radio aren't valid historians, maybe someone has articles from the Communist Parity's Daily Worker that they can share?

 

[McCoy]

Let's get down to the reason why you don't care for David Barton (notice that I didn't use the word hate this time, but it's obvious that you do).

You called him a "dominionist" in the other thread, and that sort of thing scares the h*ll out of you doesn’t it?

I am a history buff. I LOVE history and I love reading history. And by that I mean GOOD historical writing, not pop culture junk pseudo-history written by TV hosts and politicians. And I also don’t mean, I love reading the parts of history that simply favor my own preconceived views, but I love reading well-researched scholarly history because I love learning and I find studying certain time periods to be transportive. It can be bliss. It can be deeply moving. It can challenge me on any number of intellectual levels. It can be disturbing. It can be encouraging.

David Barton is not only a liar and a crackpot conspiracy theorist, but historical topics appear to only have a a cynical utilitarian purpose for him. In other words, Barton appears to only take pleasure in history to the degree that he can squeeze it into his dominionist, theodemocratic mold and f@rt it back out to the public in his image.

Unlike you, I don’t read about historical topics to win arguments or confirm biases. I read because history is fascinating and valuable for its own sake.

Dominionism was a part of my life, so no it’s not scary in the slightest. I was once a dominionist, a fundamentalist and something of a conspiracy theorist too. i know from experience why people turn to it, I know why it can seem so appealing and I know the types of people who tend to be susceptible to its ploys. When I watched the Barton Capitol video you posted, the saddest part was the interviews with people. That was me at one point.

Church services (several Christian denominations) held in the US Capitol building for close to 75 years with the the US Marine Corp band playing during some of those years. Why would a nation that wanted the Church "separated" from government use one of the most famous government buildings in WA DC to promote Christianity?

Do we accept other de facto practices in our nation’s history as automatic justification for their precedence? If this argument were valid, we could just as easily say “If the Founders really believed slavery should be unconstitutional, they wouldn’t have owned so many of them”. Early Americans did many things that were patently unconstitutional — ALL THE TIME. Early Americans were every bit as divided, conflicted, hypocritical, bigoted and inconsistent as we are today. Our nation’s foundation for law and rights is NOT early American PRACTICE, but the Constitution itself.

 

[McCoy]

I'm sorry, but since the only valid information that is allowed in this thread must come from "historians" with Master's Degrees or PhD's in that subject, I can't accept the writings of Barbara Bradley Hagerty who

"Aside from these forays into book writing, most of my career has been spent in journalism: nearly 20 years at [ultra leftist] National Public Radio, and before that, more than a decade at [ultra leftist] The Christian Science Monitor."​

Silly.

One doesn’t need to be a PhD in history in in order to fact-check or criticize the writings of another non-historian. Barton makes absurd claims that can be fact-checked by anyone who has energy, patience and access to a good library.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I am a history buff. I LOVE history and I love reading history.​

As long as that history fits your agenda. We've conversed long enough at the other forum for me to know your agenda quite well.

David Barton is not only a liar and a crackpot conspiracy theorist, but...

#3 on the most HATED list by secular humanists.

Quote: Originally posted by aCultureWarrior
Church services (several Christian denominations) held in the US Capitol building for close to 75 years with the the US Marine Corp band playing during some of those years. Why would a nation that wanted the Church "separated" from government use one of the most famous government buildings in WA DC to promote Christianity? ​

Do we accept other de facto practices in our nation’s history as automatic justification for their precedence?

Except that Christianity in government buildings wasn't out of the norm. As you saw in the Capitol Tour video, paintings of numerous famous historical figures praying with the Holy Bible in hand in the Capitol Building was shown by Barton.

Early Americans did many things that were patently unconstitutional — ALL THE TIME. Early Americans were every bit as divided, conflicted, hypocritical, bigoted and inconsistent as we are today. Our nation’s foundation for law and rights is NOT early American PRACTICE, but the Constitution itself

Refresh my memory: what year and what SCOTUS decision made these things "unconstitutional"?​

​

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Originally posted by aCultureWarrior View Post


I'm sorry, but since the only valid information that is allowed in this thread must come from "historians" with Master's Degrees or PhD's in that subject, I can't accept the writings of Barbara Bradley Hagerty who

"Aside from these forays into book writing, most of my career has been spent in journalism: nearly 20 years at [ultra leftist] National Public Radio, and before that, more than a decade at [ultra leftist] The Christian Science Monitor."​

Silly.

One doesn’t need to be a PhD in history in in order to fact-check or criticize the writings of another non-historian. Barton makes absurd claims that can be fact-checked by anyone who has energy, patience and access to a good library.

My apologies, as I was only trying to get the ground rules straight. Evidently one has to have a college degree as an historian in order to write about the Founding Fathers, but doesn't need that degree to refute the information.

How about we agree on further ground rules? When refuting information provided by me via David Barton or any other expert on the colonial days/Founding Fathers, how about the person link where that information came from? I'll guarantee you that Barbara Hagerty (liberals hate it when you drop the hyphenated name) got it from Chris Rodda, Mikey Weinstein, Warren Throckmorton or some other people with ties to the communist founded ACLU, people and an organization that you stated are not historians.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

And now for a slide show of our secular nation's Capitol...

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Why would a secular nation put Moses above the entrance to the Supreme Court?

 

[ok doser]

 

[McCoy]

Except no other religions besides Christianity were ever embraced by the Founding Fathers. The writers and signers of the Constitution didn't want a State Church, i.e. the Church of England,. they wanted people to freely come to Christ.

Are you suggesting that the religious freedom guaranteed in the first amendment extends only to branches of Christianity? As far as “wanting people to come to Christ”, that’s an evangelical view that was not held by ANY of the primary founders. The “enthusiasm” and born again conversion preaching of the Weslyans/Methodists and evangelists like George Whitefield was likewise not embraced by any of the founders.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Except no other religions besides Christianity were ever embraced by the Founding Fathers[edit: the morals laws of Judaism being an exception). The writers and signers of the Constitution didn't want a State Church, i.e. the Church of England,. they wanted people to freely come to Christ.

Are you suggesting that the religious freedom guaranteed in the first amendment extends only to branches of Christianity?

Let me know if you read anything about Islam and Muhammed, Buddha and Buddhism or the numerous pagan gods of Hinduism in this link. A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible
https://wallbuilders.com/founding-fa...tianity-bible/

As far as “wanting people to come to Christ”, that’s an evangelical view that was not held by ANY of the primary founders. The “enthusiasm” and born again conversion preaching of the Weslyans/Methodists and evangelists like George Whitefield was likewise not embraced by any of the founders.

*From the above link:

He [Samuel Adams] also called on the State of Massachusetts to pray that . . .

• the peaceful and glorious reign of our Divine Redeemer may be known and enjoyed throughout the whole family of mankind.¹²

Josiah Bartlett MILITARY OFFICER; SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; GOVERNOR OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Called on the people of New Hampshire . . .

to confess before God their aggravated transgressions and to implore His pardon and forgiveness through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ . . . [t]hat the knowledge of the Gospel of Jesus Christ may be made known to all nations, pure and undefiled religion universally prevail, and the earth be fill with the glory of the Lord.​

¹⁵

Etc. etc. etc.

Regarding George Whitefield:

For many of those who are even familiar with his name, George Whitfield is thought of as a preacher, a man connected with the Great Awakening in the 1700s. While this is true, it is only part of the story. As a student at Oxford University, he experienced a spiritual awakening under the influence of John Wesley's Methodists and immediately began tending to prisoners, caring for the poor, and preaching the Christian gospel. He met with astounding success, in time speaking to larger crowds than had ever gathered in the history of England. Whitefield became the most famous man of his age. His impact upon the American colonies, however, may have been his most lasting gift. In seven tours of the colonies, Whitfield preached from Georgia to Maine, calling the colonists to spiritual conversion and challenging them in their sense of national destiny. He befriended men like Benjamin Franklin, converted men like Patrick Henry, and inspired men like George Washington. Furthermore, when he learned that England intended to tighten her control over the colonies, Whitefield warmed his American friends in sermon after sermon and even accompanied Benjamin Franklin to make the American case in the Court of Saint James. Many of the colonists considered him the father of their revolution.​

https://www.amazon.com/Forgotten-Fou.../dp/1581821654

*Disclaimer: I have not researched to see if the above author, Stephen Mansfield is an authentic historian, so the above may have been fabricated by him in order to show that he was embraced by the founders.

 

[Gary K]

Are you suggesting that the religious freedom guaranteed in the first amendment extends only to branches of Christianity? As far as “wanting people to come to Christ”, that’s an evangelical view that was not held by ANY of the primary founders. The “enthusiasm” and born again conversion preaching of the Weslyans/Methodists and evangelists like George Whitefield was likewise not embraced by any of the founders.

False. George Whitefield was a major influence. Ben Franklin donated large sums of money to him and found him an excellent minister. And it was his preaching on the liberty granted by God that led ot the revolution. I have some quotes for that but will have to find them.

 

[McCoy]

False. George Whitefield was a major influence. Ben Franklin donated large sums of money to him and found him an excellent minister. And it was his preaching on the liberty granted by God that led ot the revolution. I have some quotes for that but will have to find them.

May I recommend to you the wonderful two-volume biography of George Whitefield, by Arnold Dallimore and originally published by Banner of Truth (a UK, evangelical publisher). They also publish Whitefield's letters and journal. Both contain the personal correspondence between Franklin and Whitefield.

Franklin was amazed by Whitefield's extraordinary oratory skills and power over his audience and he also found him to be a very nice chap (Which he was. Whitefield had few enemies and was a generous ecumenical peacemaker) Franklin devised a method to help calculate the number of people attending Whitefield's open air meetings (which on more than one occasion numbered over 10,000), and attended these impromptu sermons on numerous occasions. But one thing is clear from Whitefield's journal entries: he regarded Franklin as brilliant but ultimately LOST. He made warm appeals for Franklin's soul, but the elder statesman would have none of that born again "enthusiasm".

 

[McCoy]

Why would a secular nation put Moses above the entrance to the Supreme Court?

Why would a "Christian" nation also erect overtly pagan structures with occult and Freemason symbols, in the center of its national capital? Why would the national capital also be named after the pagan goddess of liberty, Columbia, and also feature her idolatrous image everywhere?

Again, these questions are meaningless to the discussion.

De facto practices and occurrences in early US history cannot be pointed to as if they automatically imply some kind of Constitutional precedent or Founders intent. Buildings, sculptures and random gatherings that occurred in early America, are not our foundation for law and rights in this country.

 

[McCoy]

Disclaimer: I have not researched to see if the above author, Stephen Mansfield is an authentic historian, so the above may have been fabricated by him in order to show that he was embraced by the founders.

He's not a historian, but the paragraph is mostly accurate-- except for the blurb about Patrick Henry and Washington, which I believe to be completely unfounded. Whitefield and Franklin were indeed personal friends (see my earlier post above), and Whitefield always held out hope that the Founder would repent and experience the New Birth. Franklin declined.