Notion of our Founding Fathers and Religion

[The Black Jester]

I was merely stating the historical fact that in 1605, men and who were to become the first, permanent English settlement in the New World came ashore on Cape Henry, VIrginia, planted a rough hewn wooden cross (Not a cresent, Star of David or representation of Brahma) and Rev Robert Hunt declared in covenental language “…from these very shores the Gospel shall go forth to not only this New World, but the entire world.”

And I guess I was merely asking, "So what?"

[Sophus]

Sophus: I would say that the government being separate from any religious institution would be a good thing. However I also think that there should be cordial, rather than antagonistic attitudes toward one another.

I wasn't being antagonistic. Merely asking a question, which you haven't answered yet. What is a Christian Nation? Depending upon how you define it there's a chance that we'll, or at least myself anyways, agree with you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

"Certainly they cannot be so ignorant as to imply the government was not intended to be secular"

Sophus: I would say that the government being separate from any religious institution would be a good thing.  However I also think that there should be cordial, rather than antagonistic attitudes toward one another.


" You seem to be implying that the actions of a handful of religious devotees, because such actions as you describe above occurred sequentially before the founding of the Constitutional government of the United States, somehow trump all the agreements that came after during the actual founding of the US government."

Black Jester:  What agreements are you referring to? I was merely stating the historical fact that in 1605, men and  who were to become the first, permanent English settlement in the New World came ashore on Cape Henry, VIrginia, planted a rough hewn wooden cross (Not a cresent, Star of David or representation of Brahma) and Rev Robert Hunt declared in covenental language   “…from these very shores the Gospel shall go forth to not only this New World, but the entire world.”

"Did our Founding Fathers really intend to find a Christian Nation or more broadly a Religious Nation? Were they influenced by history coming from Britain that had a State Religion?'

No.  And I think that is the best interpretation of the First Amendment.  Given the paltry church attendence figures in the countries of Scandinavia an the C of E on any given weekend, it appears the the Founding Fathers got it right.

"the said document begins with reference to "the most holy and undivided Trinity."


It does Recusant and I bet  that it gives chest pains to those who unquestioningly accept that signatory Benjamin Franklin was unquestioningly a Deist.

"Are you trying to suggest that the government of the early US considered itself a Christian state, but chose to lie about it because it was "negotiating from a position of weakness?" If not, what is your point here?"

In negotiating from a position of weakness, the fledgling nation had to accept whatever terms were offered being that their navy/armed forces were practically non-existant.  It was clear that Muslim pirates were attacking shipping from Christian countries (in part) due to the fact they were considered "infidels".

You have yet to show why anyone should actually care what these gentlemen thought back then.  After all, we are 390 years beyond Jamestown, and almost 235 beyond the Declaration.

This is still an Argument from Authority.  As such, it is fallacious.

[JD Curtis]

Do you know what?

I really do enjoy dialoging with the members here.  They are much more representative of the non-bomb throwings members of the atheist community in which something close to actual dialog can really be established.

I would have to play around with the finer inticracies of this particular message board sytem in order to use it more effectively but the fact is I hate it.  I'm much more acustomed to Blogger and thus I'm P.O.ed at this commenting process.

But anyway, might others like to throw out a specific question in this forum and I'll try to address it?  I don't mind at all.  Just think of a question (singular), post it and I'll get to it in my own sweet time.

In brief, I have a BA in Political Science (w/Criminal Justice concentration) from a state university (with grades that arent exactly remarkable BTW) and I have a decidedly Christian worldview.  I find such subject matter to be interesting and I have learned far more after graduation than before it.

PS. I would only add that when I mentioned that there should be a cordial rather than antagonistic relationship between church and state, I was speaking in general terms, not to anybody in this particular forum.

Cheers,

JD Curtis

www.treesforlunch.blogspot.com

[Thumpalumpacus]

It's cool that you don't shove your stuff down my throat, and your warm regards are returned.

Regarding your post-script, however, I don't think the two entities should have any relationship, outside of taxation.

[Tank]

Do you know what?

I really do enjoy dialoging with the members here.  They are much more representative of the non-bomb throwings members of the atheist community in which something close to actual dialog can really be established.

I would have to play around with the finer inticracies of this particular message board sytem in order to use it more effectively but the fact is I hate it.  I'm much more acustomed to Blogger and thus I'm P.O.ed at this commenting process.

But anyway, might others like to throw out a specific question in this forum and I'll try to address it?  I don't mind at all.  Just think of a question (singular), post it and I'll get to it in my own sweet time.

In brief, I have a BA in Political Science (w/Criminal Justice concentration) from a state university (with grades that arent exactly remarkable BTW) and I have a decidedly Christian worldview.  I find such subject matter to be interesting and I have learned far more after graduation than before it.

PS. I would only add that when I mentioned that there should be a cordial rather than antagonistic relationship between church and state, I was speaking in general terms, not to anybody in this particular forum.

Cheers,

JD Curtis

http://www.treesforlunch.blogspot.com

It would be equally good if you would like to ask questions as well. I'd be happy to do my best to clarify my world view if you wanted. It may be a little different from that which you are used to being British (English).

[JD Curtis]

I have been a bit busy lately and I hope to post something soon.  In the meantime, I notice that Dr. Peter Lillback (who wrote the book that got this discussion started) has started a new thread on the Providence Forum's blog.  It's a subject that I know is near and dear to the hearts of both atheists and Christians alike.  That of the question, "Is Religion Necessary for Morality?"  Link: http://www.providenceforum.org/default. ... eid=109785

He ties the beliefs of the Founding Fathers in with it as well.  Enjoy!

[Sophus]

JD Curtis, what is a Christian Nation?

And as for this....

But if atheism itself is actually folly as Psalm 14:1 says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God," then instead of loving his neighbor, the atheist is causing his neighbor to face eternity in rebellious unbelief before his creator. So, theologically, there can be no morality without religion.

Seriously? In this case the atheist Erich Fromm and great philosopher of love, who called it his life's purpose, is immoral. There you have it. Love is immoral without faith in a sky daddy. Or is this merely to say we are fools incapable of love?

What one does makes a man immoral or moral, not what one believes. This is essentially a prejudice. (I'll admit beliefs can be intentions to do immoral things, but until you act on it or try to act on it you haven't really done anything.)

[Thumpalumpacus]

Honestly, the idea that religions are founts of morality flies in the face of history.

Also, the Euthyphro Dilemma.

[JD Curtis]

"Love is immoral without faith in a sky daddy"

Lillback was speaking in theological terms Sophus.  Perhaps there can be a distinction made between someone "causing his neighbor to face eternity in rebellious unbelief before his creator" and  "Love is immoral without faith in a sky daddy"?

"the idea that religions are founts of morality flies in the face of history'

I think that there could be a viable case made to support this assertion Thumpalumpacus . However, I would not lump all religions in together as that could create a highly skewed picture as a result.

[Thumpalumpacus]

""the idea that religions are founts of morality flies in the face of history'

I think that there could be a viable case made to support this assertion Thumpalumpacus . However, I would not lump all religions in together as that could create a highly skewed picture as a result.

Indeed, which is why I used general terms.  Some decent morality has come from religions; and also some hideous injustice, which I'm sure we would agree is one form of immorality: using power to oppress the powerless.

Given this ambiguity, the idea that morality is sourced in faith -- which is a very common idea here in America -- is, at best, overstepping one's evidence, and, at worst, biased argumentation best nipped in the bud, lest unquestioned assumptions lead to further injustice.

[Sophus]

Lillback was speaking in theological terms Sophus. Perhaps there can be a distinction made between someone "causing his neighbor to face eternity in rebellious unbelief before his creator" and "Love is immoral without faith in a sky daddy"?

Yes, theological terms as in 'according to this theology all heathens are immoral,' not as in 'the belief in a different theology or none at all is immoral.' He is stating that morality as a whole cannot exist without religion. The title should speak for itself, "Is Religion Necessary for Morality?", but in case it doesn't he also concludes that it is his presented theology alongside two other reasons (the founding fathers and political science) which makes "the necessity of religion for morality".
Another point - not a few number of atheists avoid trying to "convert" anyone of a faith.

As for the John Adams quote that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people," John Adams' words are not law. John Adams was not the only founding father. The Constitution was made to protect religious freedoms (that includes those with lack of religious belief). That one particular issue was huge to Americans at the time. Yet if all non-believer are immoral* that would imply that the very man who wrote the Constitution, and worked alongside Adams, was immoral. Thomas Jefferson was a deist who has said quite the number of ugly things about Christianity.

* - What, any religious person is moral but one who has no religion can't be?

As for non-Christians being "rebellious"... how so? Most of your people who do not subsribe to the Christian faith conform to another faith. And I hardly doubt you consider yourself to be rebellious against virtually religions' dead gods like Zeus or Anubis. How can you rebel against a fictional character?

And I haven't had much luck with this next question but perhaps if I put it in big bold red letters it won't be ignored this time...  

What is a Christian Nation?

[deekayfry]

Do you know what?

I really do enjoy dialoging with the members here.  They are much more representative of the non-bomb throwings members of the atheist community in which something close to actual dialog can really be established.

I am a new member, and I agree.  People here are very civil and respecful.

I would have to play around with the finer inticracies of this particular message board sytem in order to use it more effectively but the fact is I hate it.  I'm much more acustomed to Blogger and thus I'm P.O.ed at this commenting process.

I have trouble with MB's in general, too.  I grew up in the much, much older internet with AOL (yikes!) and IRC.

But anyway, might others like to throw out a specific question in this forum and I'll try to address it?  I don't mind at all.  Just think of a question (singular), post it and I'll get to it in my own sweet time.

None at this very instance.  I had a few earlier.  They are still open.  If you can get to them that's fine, if you cannot that's fine, too.  I won't lose any sleep

PS. I would only add that when I mentioned that there should be a cordial rather than antagonistic relationship between church and state, I was speaking in general terms, not to anybody in this particular forum.

I see what you are saying.  Now that I think about it, Chruch vs. State has been with rather divisive with a lot of pent up frustration on both sides.

Also, JD, the article you posted is very interesting.  Your viewpoint has broadened my thinking on the historical aspects of religion and the New World.

I was ignorant of the prior history to the Birth of the United State.  As such, your mention of it has me reading up on it quite a bit.  Thanks for that insight.


BTW, the laid back lounge is good place hang out and is a refuge from the intellectual exercises we engage in from time to time

[JD Curtis]

Sophus, I don't speak for Dr Lillback.  He has a blog.  Might I suggest that you formulate your thoughts on the matter and post something there?  You never know. Maybe he will answer it for you.

"Thomas Jefferson was a deist who has said quite the number of ugly things about Christianity"

Sophus, I would request that you go to my blog and check out the entries entitled "On Jesus and Jefferson parts 1-3" and then get back to me.  Whenever you can get around to it.

"What is a Christian Nation?"

In the 4 pages of comments, did I make the statement, "America is a Christian nation"?  If I did, point it out to me and I'll examine the context that I stated it.  I don't recall that I actually did though.

"I was ignorant of the prior history to the Birth of the United State. As such, your mention of it has me reading up on it quite a bit. Thanks for that insight."

I very much appreciate this comment deekayfry.  I stumbled across an article today in which a judge ordered a sheriff to attend a course on the constitution because he obviously didnt understand it.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... gun-permit

[lethalvb01]

It seems there are a lot of people who believe that America was founded as a Christian nation.  What do you think?