Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
...and yet no quotes from any of the people I listed in my post. You know, the ones people actually recognize as "Founding Fathers" and endlessly quote; Washington, Jefferson, Adams, Monroe, Madison, Franklin, Hamilton, etc. These men were the "architects" of the constitution and none of them were Christian, unless you count not believing in Christ as still being Christian.
The website itself also twists this quote to imply Christian belief where none was directly expressed...
Quote:
Henry Knox Revolutionary War General, Secretary of War
First, I think it proper to express my unshaken opinion of the immortality of my soul or mind; and to dedicate and devote the same to the supreme head of the Universe – to that great and tremendous Jehovah, – Who created the universal frame of nature, worlds, and systems in number infinite . . . To this awfully sublime Being do I resign my spirit with unlimited confidence of His mercy and protection . . .
Knox is stating more of a deist view in that there is a God and while he names the Hebrew God by saying Jehovah, he is absent any mention of Christ and oddly refers to God as "supreme head of the Universe...who created the universal frame of nature". Those are deist beliefs.
Also virtually all of the quotes are from wills which would hardly be examples of their beliefs when they were shaping the nation and events.
I remain unpersuaded of the relevancy of arguing about how religious or non religious the Constitutional authors may have been. What would that mean anyway? Are we supposed to count the number of delegates with religious faith and compare the number to those without and announce that the majority prevails ?
That some were religious and others were not was not the solution, it was the problem. The solution is the law which was crafted. Citizens were to be free to adopt and practice whatever religion they wished, the government was not to disturb them and it was not to favor one over any other. The government was to have no official faith of any sort.
Why argue about intent when the intent is manifest in the law? Collectively they decided that the best government would be one which was neutral on religious issues, didn't promote it, didn't suppress it. Would determining that most of the delegates were religious trump the non promotion aspect? Would determining that most of the delegates were agnostics or atheists trump the free practice aspect?
This argument to me is akin to ignoring the final score of a ballgame and arguing about which team was best based on who had left the most men on base or who turned the most double plays.
I remain unpersuaded of the relevancy of arguing about how religious or non religious the Constitutional authors may have been. What would that mean anyway? Are we supposed to count the number of delegates with religious faith and compare the number to those without and announce that the majority prevails ?
That some were religious and others were not was not the solution, it was the problem. The solution is the law which was crafted. Citizens were to be free to adopt and practice whatever religion they wished, the government was not to disturb them and it was not to favor one over any other. The government was to have no official faith of any sort.
Why argue about intent when the intent is manifest in the law? Collectively they decided that the best government would be one which was neutral on religious issues, didn't promote it, didn't suppress it. Would determining that most of the delegates were religious trump the non promotion aspect? Would determining that most of the delegates were agnostics or atheists trump the free practice aspect?
This argument to me is akin to ignoring the final score of a ballgame and arguing about which team was best based on who had left the most men on base or who turned the most double plays.
Good points GS. Obviously the "final solution" was a secular government with no stated religious preference. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what each persons individual beliefs were as they decided that belief wasn't important in terms of running the government.
Ultimately this topic, kind of like the entire thread, is more of a slant on modern politics then anything to actually do with the Founders. Some people endlessly beat the mantra of the Founders as "creating a Christian nation" and while any logical person can see that was not the intent based on the law, people still persist even going so far as to assume that all of the Founders were ardent Christians and this is somehow evident in the Founding documents. This is then twisted so that they can say that the Founders would have supported whatever evangelical Christian conservative position they are railing about. Generally the only way to counter that is to point out that not all of them and most importantly the core figures that these same people endlessly quote, weren't actually Christians.
Excellent points GS and important to add. The issue that I find is that even when people accept what you detailed as a very logical reason for the first amendment; they still intone that there is an echo of "Christianity" in everything. In that case, it's important to point out the actual beliefs of the Founders because it removes the idea that there was an "intent" for it to be a Christian nation.
On the other hand, eight of the former thirteen colonies had established religions at the time the constitution was drafted, and several did not disestablishment until the early 1800's. Perhaps barring the Federal government from mandating the establishment of a religion may have been because most of the states already had established churches.
On the other hand, eight of the former thirteen colonies had established religions at the time the constitution was drafted, and several did not disestablishment until the early 1800's. Perhaps barring the Federal government from mandating the establishment of a religion may have been because most of the states already had established churches.
On the other hand, eight of the former thirteen colonies had established religions at the time the constitution was drafted, and several did not disestablishment until the early 1800's. Perhaps barring the Federal government from mandating the establishment of a religion may have been because most of the states already had established churches.
Of the eight, five had the Church of England as their official religion based on their charter as a colony and these were all quickly disestablished at the time of the Revolution or shortly thereafter. The other three were Congregational in the New England Puritan tradition (Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire). While that was an "official" religion, it was based on a melding of various beliefs and denominations.
At the time of the Convention in 1787 there were only five that still had an established religion: Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Georgia and South Carolina. When the USCON went into effect in 1789, Georgia eliminated their state religion, leaving four. By the time the "Bill of Rights" was adopted in 1791 both New Hampshire and South Carolina had ended their state religion, leaving just Massachusetts and Connecticut, which were the strongest Puritan influenced colonies.
The barring of the Federal government was based more on the interplay between federal and state rights and power. In fact, the entire "Bill of Rights" did not apply to the states at all until the passing of the 14th Amendment after the Civil War. The Constitution is a definition of and restraint on Federal power. It was well within the purview of the states to establish a religion if they so chose, none chose to do so after the USCON was fully ratified including the Bill of Rights. CT and MA lingered with theirs into the 1800's, but also simultaneously guaranteed religious freedom.
There was a debate between people like Patrick Henry, who wanted to be able to have state-sponsored religion, and James Madison, who didn't. Madison won the debate, and we got the First Amendment.
There was a debate between people like Patrick Henry, who wanted to be able to have state-sponsored religion, and James Madison, who didn't. Madison won the debate, and we got the First Amendment.
The debate you are referencing was not over the 1st Amendment. Patrick Henry didn't even attend the Constitutional Convention. Henry had proposed a law that would require all Virginians to pay a tax to a church of their choosing. This would be known as the General Assessment and was common in some other colonies, notably Massachusetts. Madison led the charge in the Virginia Assembly against the law and managed to win. Throughout Henry retained his complete agreement with Mason's Declaration of Rights that had been approved by the Virginia Assembly. Contained within that was the Madison edited section on a guarantee of religious freedom. Henry also supported the ending of the Anglican Church as the official State Church of Virginia. However, Henry did believe strongly in the benefits of religion in a republican nation.
This is a lengthy essay on the topic from the Library of Congress. It is mainly concerned on the matter of Madison's religious beliefs, but it explores the Henry-Madison debate to determine that.
When it came to religion in the Constitution it was actually the most religious who were the ones pushing for the inclusion of a specific ban on the Federal government designating an official religion. Remember, the Constitution is a definition of and restriction on the powers of the Federal government and it was not until the 14th Amendment that states had to honor all provisions of the Bill of Rights. Madison tended to be skeptical of what he called "parchment barriers" (he believed as did others that the rights/restrictions were already inherent in the document and the Federal government was already restricted from acting in matters of religion) but promised the religious groups in Virginia that he would work to include a specific provision barring the Federal government from creating a religion in the exclusive sense that had been normal in Europe. Henry was actually in favor of this and while Henry was not a fan of the Constitution or any form of Federal government, he was a great advocate and supporter for the Bill of Rights, including the religion provision.
Wiki lists There were 53 signatories to the Continental Association;
56 who signed the Declaration of Independence,
40 who signed their name to the Constitution, 13 who left the convention without signing and 3 who outright refused to sign.
and 48 others regarding as "Founders"
That's some 154 men, give or take individuals who appear on one of more of the three lists of founding figures. Anyone who cares to claim that they can divine the opinions of 50 much less 150 very distinct individuals born in the 18th century and claim that they can to extrapolate those opinions reveal some insight that these very distinct and often contentious individuals, born in the 18th century would have about a nation some 200+ years into the future is either fooling themselves or thinking that the rest of us must be.
So, take out all the duplicate names and you still have a bunch of diverse views. I think there are a bout 123 unique names.
What limited things are known that the founders made clear? Well, there are a few.
Based on their writings, Jefferson, Madison, and John Adams would be pleased that we have kept church and state separated. Enough has been written in these forums about this subject to fill volumes.
Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, Samuel Adams, and others would be appalled that we tried to prohibit alcohol. (Remember, Washington made both beer and whiskey at Mount Vernon, Jefferson made beer and wine, Franklin was known to like his wine and beer, and Samuel Adams was a brewer.)
Alexander Hamilton would surely have something to say about the financial systems, but I'm not sure what his views would be today. Remember, he was Washington's Secretary of the Treasury.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
