Quote:
Originally Posted by FlectiNonFrangi
|
The thesis of that article is bogus. The author has ‘cherry picked’ his evidence and ignored all evidence that upsets his thesis.
"Among the men of the Revolution who attended Bruton Parish Church [in Williamsburg, VA.] were Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Richard Henry Lee, George Wythe, Patrick Henry, and George Mason."
http://www.history.org/Almanack/places/hb/hbbruch.cfm
For anybody to claim that Washington wasn't Christian is preposterous. John Adams attended church regularly. James Madison, as a lawyer, made a living defending the rights of Virginia's Baptist congregations to worship in a manner other than that dictated by the state's Anglican Church.
Atheists also fail to comprehend the assignation of religious matters via the 10th Amendment to the states:
Article X.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
The Constitution established a "federal system" of government.
Arguing that the Founding Fathers did not explicitly define themselves and the new nation as Christian has no more merit than arguing they did not define “marriage” as a union of one man and one woman. Both ideas were accepted as “common law” that did not need to be explained in a written document in the 18th Century. There were a few atheist and deist among the Founding Fathers, but the remaining balance were, for the most part, practicing Christians. Hence, in writing and adopting the Constitution they were not seeking to diminish the practice of Christianity, per se. What they were seeking to thwart was the ascendency of one creed over the others; they did not want to be forced to worship as an Anglican or a Catholic, or a Methodist, etc.
Remember, if you will, that the New England colonies were very much founded for religious reasons. The Constitution was written in a manner that insured that the colonies, as states, could continue to regulate matters of religion, by insuring the national government could not do so. Otherwise, the central government would have abridged rights guaranteed to the separate states—which it eventually did. With the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the central government constitutionally now prohibits the states from regulating religion. But again, that was not the case in 1789.
Further, atheists always wish to use the
Treaty of Tripoli to support their atheistic agenda. The
Treaty of Tripoli is indeed an “exceptional” document, because of all of the treaties of that period, it is the only one that makes such a statement. Furthermore, the origins of
Article XI are suspect, and even if the article is a true part of the treaty, that article was not included of the subsequent treaty a mere seven or eight years later, or any other treaty since that time. Hence, as an “exceptional” document, it should be “excepted” as justification for such a carte blanche argument like the one proposed by the author you cite.
“THE ORIGINAL [Tripoli] TREATY
“The first to be noted is that which contains the original treaty. It is a book in the literal sense. There are fourteen pages of Arabic text; all of these are right-hand pages. In the Arabic order, the first of them is the ‘note’ of the money and presents, mentioned, according to the Barlow translation, in Article 10 of the treaty; the second is the ‘receipt,’ also mentioned in that article, and this page, like the first, is sealed with the seal of the Dey of Algiers. Then come the twelve pages of the treaty; the preamble is on the first of these with Article 1; and there is one article on a page, except that the script on the page between Articles 10 and 12, is, as fully explained in the annotated translation of 1930, not an article at all. The last of those twelve pages has also the seals and superscriptions, of which there are eleven In all, including one for the Dey of Algiers. The fourteen pages of Arabic text are reproduced above in left-to-right order of pagination; but the twelve treaty pages come first and then the ‘receipt’ and then the ‘note.’”
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796n.asp#n1
There is an interesting debate about the origins and veracity of Article XI. These Yale authors don’t dismiss the article out of hand, but they do say it is suspect. Furthermore, the authors point out that when the treaty is updated eight years later, it contains no equivalent text.
The site you provided also fails to include examples of other treaties of the period, most notably:
“The Paris Peace Treaty of 1783”
“In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.”
“It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the grace of God, king of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, defender of the faith, duke of Brunswick and Lunebourg, arch- treasurer and prince elector of the Holy Roman Empire etc., and of the United States of America,”
http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/paris.shtml
Please read Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1777 (
http://www.monticello.org/site/resea...igious-freedom). I am sure your author assumes most people will not check other sources. Please note that Jefferson assumes all men are “believers”. What Jefferson is addressing, is the right of each man to worship his God in the way of his own choosing. Jefferson’s argument is based on the fallibility of man; particularly, men in government who presume or pretend to have special knowledge of the divine. No where in that act does Jefferson argue that American beliefs and traditions have no roots in Christianity.
Therein you’ll read:
Jefferson: “That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”
Therein, he also wrote, “by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it . . .[corrupts] the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage . . . .” [and]
Jefferson: “to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own . . .”
Now look at the Massachusetts’s Constitution written in 1780 by John Adams: @
http://www.malegislature.gov/laws/constitution. Make sure you read it through to Chapter VI. Oaths And Subscriptions. And then refer back to the 10th Amendment provided above. The importance of religion was recognized by the Founding Fathers, but it was a matter relegated to the states.
Arguing that the Founding Fathers did not explicitly define themselves and the new nation as Christian has no merit and is completely insupportable in the face of facts to the contrary. Again, if you indeed, as you insist, have a proper understanding of what the Founding Father's intentions were, we would not be having this discussion. This matter would have been settled in your favor two hundred years ago, and today there would be no debate. But that is not the case.
General George Washington's Bruton Parish Church pew:
