What the Founding Fathers Said

[!Fluffy!]

The Founding Fathers said they believed in God.
They said we were created by God.
They said God judges us.
They said God gives us certain inalienable (unforfeitable) rights.
They said God was their Protector.
They said they believed in Divine Providence.

Rules for debate:
Please read the rest of the OP, including the Declaration of Independence, before posting anything.
Discussion is to be limited to the DoI only.

WARNING: May contain strong language

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --
...
We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
​

So the DoI declares their belief that:

God CREATED us
God created THE LAWS OF NATURE.
God ENDOWED us with certain INALIENABLE rights
God will JUDGE us
God is a PROTECTOR (awesome, they had a "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence")


1. These ideals formed the very foundation of our government.

2. The FF's absolutes are clearly, irrefutably carved into not only the DoI but in the avalanche of writings surrounding the events of our Revolutionary War, quite obviously into the psyche of those who wrote it, signed it, swore an oath to uphold it, and fought in the war the declaration made inevitable.

3. The chafe for revisionists: Not much choice when reading these words but to take them as they are written. They wanted no misunderstanding of their intent or their POV. There have been no translation debates, no dead languages are involved, and the founding fathers actually existed.

4. The truths ref'd in the DoI were so absolute to the men holding them they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their SACRED honor to protect them. IOW, they used the strongest possible language and declared those truths to be self-evident. Their actions following this declaration firmly underscored their unwavering belief in every word they swore to.

:sorry1: but I have to [rant] now...

First of all, the fact that this subject is even under discussion makes me sad. There are historical truths that are self-evident, like the truths the FF's proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence. Those who would sacrifice truth on the altar of bias or hatred must question their own intellectual honesty.

OTOH we shouldn't be amazed at the general lack of regard for "Truth" as forcefully defined and held sacred by this country's founding fathers, considering the abject poverty of same in our culture. Truth is no longer an absolute, it has been hijacked, it's a fuzzy concept that has to do with dialoguing our way to a consensus, wrapped around a bizarre concern for not bruising anyone's delicate self-esteem by forcing facts on them.

[/rant]

There are mountains of FF's documents and it would take years to study them in any comprehensive way. Please respect my choice of the Declaration of Independence as a point of reference for debate, and limit your comments to the DoI only.

 

[!Fluffy!]

... or not.

:sad4:

 

[Smoke]

Please respect my choice of the Declaration of Independence as a point of reference for debate, and limit your comments to the DoI only.

I'd be delighted if the religious fundamentalists who cite the Declaration of Independence as proof that the U.S. is meant to be a Christian country would also advocate putting the Declaration into practice. For instance, if they would agree that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and would desist from trying to take away those rights from those who disagree with them, then we could agree. I have no problem with a Christian country that doesn't try to force people to be Christians, think like Christians, or act like Christians, but encourages the free exercise of the rights granted to them by their Creator.

 

[Faint]

The Founding Fathers said...

What are you trying to debate specifically? Whether or not the FFs were religious? Whether this country should be run by theists? I read your entire post...it was pretty but I don't see what point you're trying to make.

 

[!Fluffy!]

I'd be delighted if the religious fundamentalists who cite the Declaration of Independence as proof that the U.S. is meant to be a Christian country would also advocate putting the Declaration into practice. For instance, if they would agree that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness," and would desist from trying to take away those rights from those who disagree with them, then we could agree. I have no problem with a Christian country that doesn't try to force people to be Christians, think like Christians, or act like Christians, but encourages the free exercise of the rights granted to them by their Creator.

Well MB please don't put me in the RF category, nor would I ever cite the DoI as proof that the U.S. is meant to be a 'Christian' country AT ALL. That was not my point in this thread.

So, you are a little off topic here but I get your point completely. The point made in my OP would be regarding the founders' Godly perspective and POV at the time they signed the DoI, which could arguably have been considered the birth of a nation.

To be clear, I personally would never advocate trying to "force people to be Christians, think like Christians, or act like Christians".

Personally I abhor the Ayatollah Khomeini method of religiious tyranny and theocracy. I believe that was the point the FF's had in mind when they were addressing the tyranny issue. Tyranny=bad, freedom=good.

So I agree with you ..."but encourages the free exercise of the rights granted to them by their Creator", exactly what the Founders had in mind I think.

 

[Sunstone]

Ok. Now I'm curious.

First, are you equating Franklin and Jefferson's notions of Deity with the Christian God? Do you believe that the DOI was mainly written by Christians who had the Christian God in mind?

Second, do you think it's possible the DOI might be foremost and primarily a political document, rather than a theological document, and that certain theological phrases in the DOI might be there not so much because they reflect the views of the authors, but rather to persuade people who believed those things to the American cause?

Third, do you have a specific purpose in wishing to confine the evidence used in this debate to soley the DOI, and how does this jive with your notion that you have a superior understanding of what's true or not? That is, how does it follow from the fact that you only wish to look at one piece of evidence that you have an understanding of the truth which is superior to scholars who look at many pieces of evidence?

Fourth, would you elaborate on or defend your unsubstantiated assertation that there was ever a time in human history when absolute truths were actually known? Not claimed to be known. Actually known.

Fifth, have you ever studied the epistemology of truth? What about studying the way historians go about establishing truth. Have you ever attempted to do what either epistemologists or historians do? I'm just curious if you speak from any experience when you talk about how truth and historical truths are established.

Maybe it's a lack of coffee this morning, but much of your OP seems to me artifically limited and stacked against reasoned discussion. Those are weak and shifting sands to found a position on.

 

[!Fluffy!]

What are you trying to debate specifically? Whether or not the FFs were religious? Whether this country should be run by theists? I read your entire post...it was pretty but I don't see what point you're trying to make.

An earlier thread proposed the FF's did not have a theistic POV. This is a refutation.

 

[Faint]

An earlier thread proposed the FF's did not have a theistic POV. This is a refutation.

Ah. I missed that thread.
Anyway, looks like Sunstone beat me to the punch on this one. Have fun!

 

[!Fluffy!]

Ok. Now I'm curious.

First, are you equating Franklin and Jefferson's notions of Deity with the Christian God? Do you believe that the DOI was mainly written by Christians who had the Christian God in mind?

Okay thanks Sunstone for your response, well thought out.

I only know what you and I read above. If that God resembles the "Christian" God more than say Allah or Thor, was that something that was deliberate, or does it really even matter in context? I am merely pointing out the obvious. How it is construed or misconstrued isn't within my control.

Second, do you think it's possible the DOI might be foremost and primarily a political document, rather than a theological document, and that certain theological phrases in the DOI might be there not so much because they reflect the views of the authors, but rather to persuade people who believed those things to the American cause?

You couldn't get more political. It appears that if they signed it in blood they could not have been more serious in their intent, and I would hesitate to accuse them of lying for political gain. What do you think?

Third, do you have a specific purpose in wishing to confine the evidence used in this debate to soley the DOI, and how does this jive with your notion that you have a superior understanding of what's true or not? That is, how does it follow from the fact that you only wish to look at one piece of evidence that you have an understanding of the truth which is superior to scholars who look at many pieces of evidence?

Yes, my purpose in wishing to confine this particular thread to the DoI is twofold: the document manifests as a statement of belief and intent at the point in history where a group of individuals made a critical decision: namely that their lives, fortunes, and sacred honor were less important than their ideals (that is, if we are to believe their words), and what followed from that spawned a nation. Secondly, the mountains of evidence involved outside of this document would preclude any effective or coherent dialogue within one thread - I've seen such dissolve into dissonance too many times to want to go there myself. If someone wishes to follow another line, that's their perogative and I would thoroughly enjoy seeing it, if well presented.

Fourth, would you elaborate on or defend your unsubstantiated assertation that there was ever a time in human history when absolute truths were actually known? Not claimed to be known. Actually known.

No. It's my opinion, one shared with the founders apparently.

Fifth, have you ever studied the epistemology of truth? What about studying the way historians go about establishing truth. Have you ever attempted to do what either epistemologists or historians do? I'm just curious if you speak from any experience when you talk about how truth and historical truths are established

Yes but I don't claim to be an expert on anything, strictly WYSIWIG. This is too off the wall deep for me at this point in our conversation, I don't want to swim into deeper waters than what I've already put forth here. But feel free to enlighten me if I have made any errors.

Maybe it's a lack of coffee this morning, but much of your OP seems to me artifically limited and stacked against reasoned discussion. Those are weak and shifting sands to found a position on.

Well, you can look at it that way if there is no other leg to stand on in context of the thread. Or correct any errors in logic I have made within it. That's the challenge.

 

[Green Gaia]

I don't understand the point of this.... so the men who wrote the founding documents of this country believed in God. So what? Does that mean I, as an American, have to be theistic? Quite frankly I get a little nervous when people start throwing around quotes of this country's founders on religion. They are not my religious or spiritual leaders, they were political leaders. I don't give a second thought to their religious persuasion beyond mere curiosity, unless someone is making the tired old argument that the founders of this country were Christian therefore we should all be too. Then I feel forced to become defensive about my religion being called anti-American because it not Christian. It's quite tiresome.

So sorry, again... what was the point?

 

[!Fluffy!]

I don't understand the point of this.... so the men who wrote the founding documents of this country believed in God. So what? Does that mean I, as an American, have to be theistic? Quite frankly I get a little nervous when people start throwing around quotes of this country's founders on religion. They are not my religious or spiritual leaders, they were political leaders. I don't give a second thought to their religious persuasion beyond mere curiosity, unless someone is making the tired old argument that the founders of this country were Christian therefore we should all be too. Then I feel forced to become defensive about my religion being called anti-American because it not Christian. It's quite tiresome.

So sorry, again... what was the point?

The point? I think that's pretty well presented in my replies to Faith and again to Sunstone.

I am sorry you are nervous about the subject, really there is no need to be. There is no reason to think that you as an American have to be theistic, satanic, Wiccan, or a purple people eater for that matter. The idea would be loathsome to the Founding Fathers, I think. However I think it is profitable for anyone living here to understand the foundations and layers of sacrifice we stand on, and maybe respect if not agree with the FF's POV. If someone makes you feel forced to become defensive about your religion that is not right. By the same token if someone tries to force me to become defensive about being a Christian that's not right either.

There are many who try to caricaturize those of opposing view or opposing faiths. Fortunately we live in a country where we can ignore their pettiness and go about our business, or openly debate them in a public venue like this forum. I thank the Founders for that. They sacrificed a lot to get us here, and I respect them for that. I'm not ashamed of them, I don't try to misinterpret their intent, their words, or what they did for us.

I don't think you meant to say here Maize that a discussion of the DoI and the FF's theistic point of view in writing it makes you nervous. I think I addressed your concerns about religious fundamentalism in my reply to Midnight Blue.

Thanks for posting.

 

[logician]

The whole point of this thread was showing that many of our founding fathers had vastly more "liberal" interpretations of "what god is", "what religion is" and "what Christianity is" than our present day pseudo-sanctimonius politicians, many to the point of questioning god's existence, and certainly to the point of some disdain for Christianity as practiced then. That's why they were so careful to craft a government where church and state were separate.

 

[!Fluffy!]

The whole point of this thread was showing that many of our founding fathers had vastly more "liberal" interpretations of "what god is", "what religion is" and "what Christianity is" than our present day pseudo-sanctimonius politicians, many to the point of questioning god's existence, and certainly to the point of some disdain for Christianity as practiced then. That's why they were so careful to craft a government where church and state were separate.

If you are referring to the whole point of this thread, no. Those are sweeping broad-brush statements that I wanted to avoid by concentrating on the DoI.

If you are referring to the whole point of another thread, okay. You can make your points there and I think you already did.

If you'd like to respond to the OP or any other posts made here in this thread I would enjoy hearing your comments.

 

[Green Gaia]

I am sorry you are nervous about the subject, really there is no need to be.

Being in the religious minority in the current political climate, I beg to differ. But that's another discussion.

However I think it is profitable for anyone living here to understand the foundations and layers of sacrifice we stand on, and maybe respect if not agree with the FF's POV.

Absolutely. Might I suggest The American Creed by the Rev. Forrest Church, a Unitarian Universalist minister.

They sacrificed a lot to get us here, and I respect them for that. I'm not ashamed of them, I don't try to misinterpret their intent, their words, or what they did for us.

Neither do I, but neither do I look to them for religious advice. And neither do I think everything that was done in the name of our country should be glorified, some of it we damn well should be ashamed of. For example, what was done to the native people already living here and slavery of African peoples.

I don't think you meant to say here Maize that a discussion of the DoI and the FF's theistic point of view in writing it makes you nervous.

Not at all. It's the usual motivation behind bringing up their religious beliefs that makes me cringe. I was not implying that was your motivation, however.

 

[!Fluffy!]

Being in the religious minority in the current political climate, I beg to differ. But that's another discussion.
Absolutely. Might I suggest The American Creed by the Rev. Forrest Church, a Unitarian Universalist minister.

From Publishers Weekly

Church, senior minister at All Souls Unitarian Church in Manhattan and author of Bringing God Home and Life Lines, digs deeply into the American past in this brief treatise on history and faith. Church argues that the "American Creed"-which employs a language of faith but transcends "religious particulars, uniting all citizens in a single covenant"-is an appropriate and generous principle upon which to found a great nation. This creed, he says, is distilled in the Declaration of Independence, which he dissects here alongside many other American standards. He examines the motto "In God We Trust," analyzes national hymns such as "America the Beautiful" and "The Star-Spangled Banner" and studies the holiday tradition of Thanksgiving, which he calls "an American Seder." Those who are familiar with Church's opus, which often features him as a kind of bemused and even cynical observer of the national scene, will be startled to find him optimistic and open-handed here. He resists cheap shots at easy targets, such as the religious right, even while lauding such liberal icons as Martin Luther King Jr. and Eleanor Roosevelt alongside American presidents such as Washington and Lincoln. Innovative chapters also herald the theological contributions of Jonathan Edwards and Roger Williams to the fashioning of American ideals. Church argues for a middle course between fundamentalists who want to inject a narrow Christianity into the national agenda (and claim that the nation's founders would have approved of such an encroachment) and secularists who wish to divorce the state entirely from its roots, which are steeped in faith. This marvelous primer accessibly and fairly explores the intersection of freedom and faith in American life.

Sounds like a man after my own heart. I put it on my Amazon Wish List, thanks.

Neither do I, but neither do I look to them for religious advice. And neither do I think everything that was done in the name of our country should be glorified, some of it we damn well should be ashamed of. For example, what was done to the native people already living here and slavery of African peoples.

I don't think I ever claimed one should look to them for religious advice, or that everything done in the name of our country should be glorified.

I am proud of the fact that we ended slavery here, though. I believe it was rather innovative at the time, internationally speaking.

Not at all. It's the usual motivation behind bringing up their religious beliefs that makes me cringe. I was not implying that was your motivation, however.

I can't speak to others' usual motivations; my usual motivation is to seek the truth as best I can. And thank you for your considerate response. Your style is refreshing and I appreciate your structured posts, makes it easy to reply.

 

[kateyes]

While I agree there does seem to be alot of concern in the US today--that we are becoming a theocracy--it is not my belief (even after reading the DoI)--that the FF intended to found a Christian nation. I think it is important to note--they do not define God (ie they do not say the God of Abraham)-I think generally there is an assumption (and we all know that isn't a good thing) that they are referring to the Judeo/Christian God.

Posted by TwinTowers:

God CREATED us
God created THE LAWS OF NATURE.
God ENDOWED us with certain INALIENABLE rights
God will JUDGE us
God is a PROTECTOR (awesome, they had a "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence")

I have a some of trouble with this bit--it does not say "God" thier creator--it just says thier "Creator" it is just an assumption to think they meant God and not for example Dr. Frankenstein. Nowhere does it say God created the laws of nature--it acknowledges the laws of nature exist and that there is a God of Nature (could be mother earth, Zeus etc)-but it doesn't say God's laws of nature-again you are assuming a reference to a Christian god. The "creator" endowed us with inalienable rights--you again assume the "creator" is God. The Supreme Judge of the World could be god--but it could be Ben Franklin or John Adams (they were both supposed to be know it all types). Finally to my knowledge all religions Christian, pagan, wicca muslim recognize a form of divine Providence- in the wider sense of a super being who governs the universe and controls human affairs with a specific purpose and design. I actually always thought the FF went to great lengths not to make specific references to God.

You specifically stated you were using only the DoI--but to me the Declaration is just the starting point--it served the purpose of severing our connection with Great Britain. It is not however the standard on which the United States is based. That would be be the Constitution--which to my knowledge makes no reference what so ever to any God--and includes in the Bill of Rights:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

And also establishes a very determined separation of church and state--which is the foundation of this Country.

 

[kateyes]

[quote--TwinTowers--i am proud of the fact that we ended slavery here, though. I believe it was rather innovative at the time, internationally speaking. [/quote]

Sorry don't mean to be picky--we (the US) actually lagged behind the times abit--Great Britain abolished Slave trade in 1807--and abolished slavery entirely in 1833. France first abolished slavery in 1794--it went back and forth a bit--but they still managed to abolish slave trade in 1818, and slavery entirely in 1848. Even Russian beat the US to emancipation when it freed the serfs in 1861. Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation didn't take effect until January 1, 1863.

 

[Green Gaia]

I found this quote by Jefferson:

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan [Muslim], the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67

And it occurred to me that given the culture and attitudes at the time, non-theistic ideas were still viewed very unfavorably and even criminally in most societies. So it should be of no great surprise to us that people of power in the 18th century of this country believed in a god, especially since that tradition (of distrusting anything outside the mainstream religion) has carried forth to the present day. So yes, they believed in a god, most likely the Christian god.... but so did most everyone else in this country at the time too. So I find their religious beliefs a cultural and historical curiosity, but nothing more. I find their devotion to religious freedom far more fascinating, but that's just me.

 

[!Fluffy!]

While I agree there does seem to be alot of concern in the US today--that we are becoming a theocracy--it is not my belief (even after reading the DoI)--that the FF intended to found a Christian nation.

Not mine either, though everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I think it is important to note--they do not define God (ie they do not say the God of Abraham)-I think generally there is an assumption (and we all know that isn't a good thing) that they are referring to the Judeo/Christian God.

What is your assumption, if I might ask. Pretend you just read the DoI, what would it tell you about these men and their POV?

I have a some of trouble with this bit--it does not say "God" thier creator--it just says thier "Creator" it is just an assumption to think they meant God and not for example Dr. Frankenstein.

Yes if you wish, one could suppose the Founders were of the belief that their creator was Dr. Frankenstein.

Nowhere does it say God created the laws of nature--it acknowledges the laws of nature exist and that there is a God of Nature (could be mother earth, Zeus etc)-

Yes, it could be Zeus.

Okay so far we have the Founders believing the Creator is Dr. Frankenstein and Zeus is the God of nature.

but it doesn't say God's laws of nature-again you are assuming a reference to a Christian god.

Sorry, I never assumed a reference to a Christian God, unless I missed a post of mine?

The "creator" endowed us with inalienable rights--you again assume the "creator" is God.

Or perhaps the Founders assumed the creator is God.

The Supreme Judge of the World could be god--but it could be Ben Franklin or John Adams (they were both supposed to be know it all types).

Yes the Supreme Judge of the World could be John Adams. I prefer to think they were looking into the future and seeing -- me!

So far we have the creator Dr. Frankenstein, Zeus the God of nature, and John Adams the Supreme Judge of the World.

Finally to my knowledge all religions Christian, pagan, wicca muslim recognize a form of divine Providence- in the wider sense of a super being who governs the universe and controls human affairs with a specific purpose and design.

Okay. Are you saying you believe the Founders were wiccan or muslims based on the DoI and the arguments I've made here?

I actually always thought the FF went to great lengths not to make specific references to God.

I don't think so. If you would like to start another thread based on that theory okay, but if we could stick to the topic that would be great.

You specifically stated you were using only the DoI--but to me the Declaration is just the starting point--

a rather important place in history, and you are more than welcome to start another thread about what followed. I would enjoy seeing it.

it served the purpose of severing our connection with Great Britain.

Arguably it gave us great insight, if we are so inclined to view it impartially, into their collective intent and POV.

It is not however the standard on which the United States is based. That would be be the Constitution--

I never said it was, and the Constitution isn't up for debate here. But I would like to see it as another thread.

Interestingly I stumbled across the portion of The Articles of Confederation which lay the foundation for and preceded the Constitution, the signatory portion says:

"And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union."

and beyond that please let us stick to and respect the subject matter as put forth in the original premise, that's as far off track as I want to go. Thanks.

which to my knowledge makes no reference what so ever to any God--and includes in the Bill of Rights:

Again, that's not up for debate here, but it would make its own good thread which I would enjoy seeing. I really don't want this to go off in ten different directions.

Thanks for taking the time to post. I appreciate your point of view -- but it seems mine is continually misinterpreted and frankly it makes ME nervous. It gets tiring answering the same thing over and over when I've made every effort to clarify. Maybe expecting people to read the previous posts in a thread like I do isn't realistic.

NO I am not a fundie, no I don't want to make you one, no I don't believe the Founders intended every American to be forced to be a Christian, no, no, no, no, no.


Beyond that i have to wonder why are the words in the DoI, the basics -- so hard to acknowledge at face value?

Why are some actively involved in revisionism to the extent they are? I don't get it.

I'm having a bit of a hard time fitting in on this board, that's the plain truth.[/whine]

 

[kateyes]

Sorry I thought I had read through the entire thread--It wasn't my intent to go off topic. I will re-read the thread and see where I went off.