Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
Jon Rowe has the details of a declaration Palin issued in Alaska last year declaring a Christian Heritage Week. It's the kind of vastly oversimplified boilerplate we've seen from the religious right time and time again. The declaration begins:
WHEREAS, the celebration of Christian Heritage Week, October 21-27, 2007, reminds Alaskans of the role Christianity has played in our rich heritage. Many truly great men and women of America, giants in the structuring of American history, were Christians of caliber and integrity who did not hesitate to express their faith. Some of their legacies are evidenced as follows:
And she then goes on to provide a number of quotations from various founding fathers, including several who were not Christians under any reasonable definition of the word. It also turns out that most of these quotes are either out of context or inaccurately cited.
The first quote is from Ben Franklin, when he was suggesting that the quarreling delegates stop and have a prayer (his suggestion was rejected, by the way, and the meeting was adjourned without the prayer). Here's what Palin quotes him as saying:
WHEREAS, Benjamin Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention stated, "It is impossible to build an empire without our Father's aid. I believe the sacred writings which say that, Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it (Psalm 127:1)."
Here's what Franklin actually said, as recorded in the notes of James Madison:
I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of this truth that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that "except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel.
It's pretty close to the quote she has, but still inaccurate. And yes, Franklin did believe in a provident God that answered prayer. But he also rejected most of the elements of orthodox Christianity, including the divinity of Jesus. Franklin, along with most of the other leading founding fathers (Washington, Jefferson, Adams and Madison), was best described by the Christian historian Gregg Frazer as a theistic rationalist rather than a Christian.
The second quote is from George Washington and this one is much more severely altered from the original. Her declaration reads:
WHEREAS, George Washington enunciated, "animated alone by the pure spirit of Christianity, and conducting ourselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, we may enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity."
The quote, such as it is, comes from a letter Washington wrote to a group of Roman Catholics. But Palin's declaration makes it sound as though Washington was speaking of himself when he was actually speaking to the recipients of his letter. Here's the actual quote:
And may the members of your society [the Roman Catholics] in America, animated alone by the pure spirit of christianity, and still conducting themselves as the faithful subjects of our free government, enjoy every temporal and spiritual felicity.
The third quote is from Thomas Jefferson:
WHEREAS, Thomas Jefferson, author of the Declaration of Independence, wrote, "Can the liberties of a nation be secure when we have removed the conviction that these liberties are the gift of God?"
This is an inaccurate quotation, but I won't hold that against Palin because the same quotation appears on the Jefferson Memorial (the actual quotation is longer, but expresses the same basic idea). But remember that she presents these quotes as evidence of "Christians of caliber and integrity" who led our government, and the fact is that Jefferson was not a Christian by any criteria that Palin would likely recognize.
Jefferson, like the others cited above, was a theistic rationalist. He believed strongly that the ethical system that Jesus came up with was the finest he had encountered, but he rejected every other element of Christianity - the resurrection, the virgin birth, original sin and atonement, the divinity of Jesus (he not only believed Jesus was a mere human, he argued that Jesus had never claimed to be divine at all, that this was one of the many corruptions foisted on us by his followers). He also rejected the Old Testament conception of God as "cruel, capricious, vindictive and unjust."
Imagine Jefferson walking into Palin's Assembly of God church and explaining those beliefs to them. Would they welcome him as a Christian? Almost certainly not. Yet here she lists him as a Christian. It must be remember that believing in God does not necessarily mean believing in the Christian God and Jefferson clearly did not.
The next quotation is from James Madison:
WHEREAS, James Madison, father of the United States Constitution advocated "the diffusion of the light of Christianity in our nation" in his Memorial and Remonstrance.
The Memorial and Remonstrance was a document that Madison wrote in opposition to a bill put forth by Patrick Henry in the Virginia Assembly that would have taxed the people of that state for the support of Christian churches. Madison, who advocated the strictest separation of church and state of all the founding fathers, thought this bill was a violation of the rights of conscience and his arguments won the day, the bill was defeated -- and in its place he pushed through the Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, a bill originally written by Jefferson that became a model for the first amendment a few years later. But here is the actual quote:
12. Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind.
Madison was speaking predominately to Christians and he was appealing to their own beliefs, arguing that separation of church and state was more conducive to the spread of Christianity than an established church. He was right, of course, and today America is far more pervasively Christian than other nations like England, which still technically has an established church. If you want Christianity to spread widely, he was saying to them, you should support separation rather than religious establishments.
The fifth quote is from Patrick Henry:
WHEREAS, Patrick Henry quoted Proverbs 14:34 for our nation, "Righteousness alone can exalt a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people."
I have no doubt that Henry quoted this verse, probably many times in his life. But bear in mind that Patrick Henry was opposed to the passage of the Constitution, not for it. Also bear in mind that he was in essence an advocate of theocracy. He wanted people taxed to support Christian churches, a profoundly unjust idea. The last quote, from George Mason, is accurate.
But there is one other matter that is worth mentioning: two of the men she quotes were staunchly opposed to issuing the very kind of declarations she has issued here. Thomas Jefferson famously refused to issue such declarations as his predecessors, Washington and Adams, had done. A minister named Samuel Miller wrote to Jefferson while he was in office, urging him to issue such proclamations. His reply is instructive:
Sir, -- I have duly received your favor of the 18th and am thankful to you for having written it, because it is more agreeable to prevent than to refuse what I do not think myself authorized to comply with. I consider the government of the U S. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U.S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U.S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from. It must be meant too that this recommendation is to carry some authority, and to be sanctioned by some penalty on those who disregard it; not indeed of fine and imprisonment, but of some degree of proscription perhaps in public opinion. And does the change in the nature of the penalty make the recommendation the less a law of conduct for those to whom it is directed? I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct it's exercises, it's discipline, or it's doctrines; nor of the religious societies that the general government should be invested with the power of effecting any uniformity of time or matter among them. Fasting & prayer are religious exercises. The enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, & the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the constitution has deposited it.I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted. But I have ever believed that the example of state executives led to the assumption of that authority by the general government, without due examination, which would have discovered that what might be a right in a state government, was a violation of that right when assumed by another. Be this as it may, every one must act according to the dictates of his own reason, & mine tells me that civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents.
Madison agreed with Jefferson, though he did bow to enormous political pressure surrounding the War of 1812 and issue a couple of vaguely worded proclamations as Congress demanded. He did so very reluctantly and regretted it greatly. In his Detached Memoranda, he wrote of such proclamations:
Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.
The objections to them are 1. that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms. 2. The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate. 3. They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea.
There is irony in issuing a religious declaration to America's Christian heritage that includes quotes from men who were not Christian and from those who argued strongly against the issuing of such declarations under any circumstances.
Politics
Comments
The fact that she misquoted just about every one of the Founding Fathers bothers me a little bit, but given the stupidity she's already showcased, I think this will be a relatively minor mistake.
It's too bad, too, because it might get us into a genuine debate about the religious nature of the founding fathers.
Posted by: JStein | September 2, 2008 10:21 AM
One more data point in favour of "Pandering to the Christianists" as the reason for choosing Palin.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 2, 2008 10:47 AM
Whenever I come across statements such as those in Palin's proclamation I always wonder, is the person making such assertions knowingly deceitful or have they simply bought into the lies of those who came before them? The former are much easier to deal with in my experience. Most people can be shown how lying harms them and those they care about. Failing that they can usually be revealed as deceivers and their influence marginalized. It's a rare talent to be able to pull of long cons, particular in the face of opponents who are constantly pointing out the truth.
Unfortunately I think that most the time it's the latter. The one's who believe they are speaking the truth, even while perpetuating falsehoods, are most difficult to deal with. You cannot appeal to their integrity, because they honestly believe they are being truthful. They have sincerity, conviction and passion, which provides a natural air of credibility to their audience. Most of all they are highly resistant to any ideas that run counter to their belief. Who wants to believe they have been systematically lied too their entire lives by people they love and respect. Imagine if you discovered your parents, friends, leaders and mentors had been deceiving you all your life. Whether they did it through intentional deception or their own misguided beliefs is of little importance. Emotionally it's extremely difficult most people to accept.
When I see proclamations like Palin's what I feel anger toward the con artist who started the lie. But moreover I feel overwhelming pity, pity for the poor deluded fools who spread it and pity for those unfortunate people who buy into it. This is why what Ed is doing here is so important. Honest, well informed, and vocal people can prevent the lies from taking root in one who is hearing them for the first time and it chips away at the facade, allowing even the deluded to perhaps gradually accept the truth.
Whoever controls the past, directs the future. To remain silent is to hand the future to con artists and fools. Jstein is probably correct in saying this won't make much of a splash on the national scene and that's a shame. But you can bet I'll be talking about it and I hope you will too.
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 2, 2008 10:58 AM
Palin didn't write any of that stuff -- and I greatly doubt she even knows or cares if it's true (no doubt she believes it though). The proclamation was supplied by Christian Heritage Ministries as it has been given to other states in the past few years. (There's a ton of articles for Ed to get his teeth into, though their site seems not to be particularly active.)
Scanning old news articles it seems that Governor Christine Gregoire got some mixed press for signing the proclamation and a few years back Jesse Ventura was mocked for signing that proclamation after publicly refusing to sign Dobson's proclamation for the National Day of Prayer.
Given that Palin seems to believe that the founding fathers recited the Pledge of Allegiance, I doubt she knows the first thing about what they believed.
Posted by: tacitus | September 2, 2008 11:56 AM
Please correct me if I am wrong, but I thought that a large-ish percentage of Alaska was Russian Orthodox? Or maybe it was some other Russian sect who left to avoid the Orthodox community, rather than to avoid the communists?
Anyway, wouldn't they be very different from the Protestant model she's talking about with the Founding Fathers?
Posted by: JustaTech | September 2, 2008 1:09 PM
Tacitus said
So this is the same proclamation that is making rounds and people are blindly just accepting it? Doesn't anyone fact check before the blindly promote a document? I wonder what other things Palin has blindly signed or agreed to.... this could be fun.
Posted by: Anna | September 2, 2008 1:45 PM
How is Palin looked upon by earlier immigrants to Alaska--whose ancestors were not Christians at all?
Which brings up a related question. What are Palin's views on immigration? I guess she thinks it was okay to overrun Alaska with Americans, how about with Mexicans or Filipinos?
Posted by: mark | September 2, 2008 2:20 PM
Anna, well to be fair, proclamations of this type don't have any real significance -- they are merely a pandering exercise foisted on governors by activist groups like Focus on the Family and the Christian Heritage Ministries. They merely serve to inform the public as to which political groups the governor wants to find favor with.
Having looked into the National Day of Prayer proclamations, a large number of governors just take the Focus on the Family provided formulation complete with the (probably) unconstitutional content which includes a bible verse and "biblically-inspired" sectarian theme. A few more liberal states issue their own NDP proclamations without the sectarian language, and even fewer don't issue one at all. There are also a couple of states that don't issue any proclamations.
So, while Palin's actions inform us as to who she seeks to curry favor with and bolsters her religious right credentials, I would hesitate to read much more than that into it on this occasion (and I am speaking as one who thinks Palin as VP would be an unmitigated disaster for this country).
Posted by: tacitus | September 2, 2008 2:46 PM
She lies like a fundie.
Posted by: khan | September 2, 2008 3:19 PM
This is interesting on at least two levels. First, I believe the first Christians in Alaska were the Russian Orthodox. Second, Palin and her husband used to (?) belong to an organization that advocates secession from the United States. Why cozy up to the Founding Fathers now?
Posted by: sharon hussein | September 2, 2008 4:58 PM
They embrace you only as much as they need you and how much you are willing to divest yourself of what is yours for their benefit. Other than that, you are muck to them. If you dare to contest their world view, you are branded, isolated, marginalized and, whenever possible, robbed of all you have as surely as if you were mugged on the street. Go ahead, idiots! Salute the flag, spout the oath of allegiance, profess loyalty to your rapacious, thieving employers, and ratchet your debt up to ever higher levels. Enjoy the American Dream. It must be great to be able to deceive yourselves!
Posted by: irspariah | September 3, 2008 1:42 PM
It's true that Jefferson did not declare a national day of fasting and prayer. He, as most of the Founders, was wary of giving the FEDERAL government too much power. He did not think it was appropriate for the Federal government. However, he DID declare a day of fasting and prayer as governor of Virginia.
Posted by: History Matters | September 3, 2008 10:16 PM
History Matters is a quoteminer in the spirit of David Barton. He states in this blog post from his blog: http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2007/10/james-madison-on-religion-and.html
I was also bemused in his blog post title that Madison' complex and comprehensive views on religion and government could be condensed to one sentence. But wait, your quote is false, nowhere in Memorial and Remonstrance, where the first part comes from, does Madison state "religion is the basis and foundation of government."
There's more, here is what Madison does state in that document about his views on religious institutions:
Here is the full context of Madison's text, Memorial and Remonstrance: http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html .
While these are Madison's views, his paper got broad support within the Virginia legislature, tough to get elected these days with rhetoric like that wouldn't it?
Madison's effort's in the VA legislature, where he leveraged Memorial and Remonstrance while presenting a 1799 draft of a Jefferson bill, was used to finally kill of Patrick Henry's proposal that gov't collect taxes to indoctrinate children with his religious viewpoints, Henry's bill had sat lingering waiting for leadership to supplant it. Madison led the charge. VA passed the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom 67 to 20 votes (or close, this is off the top of my head, it was a big margin). Madison's response castigated organized religion and majority will over minority rights (though not personal beliefs in a "Universal Sovereign"). VA not only voted to become a secular commonwealth in 1786, the intent of their statute was a primary influence on relevant clauses in the Bill of Rights that guarantee our freedom from religious zealots.
This issue remains relevant, just today the Florida Supreme Court struck down some proposals by Jeb Bush who tried to sneak past voters two amendments that would have led to Florida striking down their Madison-like protections in order to implement what Henry wanted, taxpayer funds going to religious schools. In fact, it was subversively intended to amend the FL state constitution that currently prohibits tax receipts be used to fund religious schools. Here is one source reporting on victory in Florida for taxpayers and people who support broad religious freedom rights just like our framers did and contrary to what History Matters advocates with his propaganda: http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=pr&page=NewsArticle&id=10015&JServSessionIdr012=wl0jscr7r3.app1b
History does matter. Get it right next time. Something tells that probably won't happen.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 3, 2008 11:35 PM
For all of you who have bought into a distorted and revised view of our nation's Judeo-Christian history, perhaps a review of:
U.S. Supreme Court case
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
would be useful and should be read in its entirety.
Some excerpts are as follows:
"Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."
And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294-295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said:
"The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice, and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. . . .
(The Supreme Court then found) "If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."
Posted by: Defendereagle | September 6, 2008 6:36 PM
For all of you who have bought into a distorted and revised view of our nation's Judeo-Christian history, perhaps a review of:
U.S. Supreme Court case
Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457 (1892)
would be useful and should be read in its entirety.
Some excerpts are as follows:
"Christianity, general Christianity, is, and always has been, a part of the common law of Pennsylvania; . . . not Christianity with an established church and tithes and spiritual courts, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men."
And in People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 290, 294-295, Chancellor Kent, the great commentator on American law, speaking as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of New York, said:
"The people of this state, in common with the people of this country, profess the general doctrines of Christianity as the rule of their faith and practice, and to scandalize the author of these doctrines is not only, in a religious point of view, extremely impious, but, even in respect to the obligations due to society, is a gross violation of decency and good order. . . .
(The Supreme Court then found) "If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."
Posted by: Defendereagle | September 6, 2008 6:38 PM
Defendereagle,
I would remind you of cases like "Dred Scott" (something all of us should agree wrongly decided) and "Roe v. Wade" (something you certainly think wrongly decided) to remind you of the fallibility of the United States Supreme Court. Even Justice Scalia in his book "A Matter of Interpretation" termed "Holy Trinity" a case that was wrongly decided and that utilized piss poor legal reasoning.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | September 6, 2008 6:44 PM
D.E.
I'd also ask you to define "Christianity in general." There is as much a problem with that concept as there is with "religion in general." Indeed Jefferson, Madison and others disagreed that "Christianity" was part of the common law. And further indeed, many of America's Founders equivocated between "Christianity in general" and "religion in general" and conflated the two concepts.
I've concluded, after much study, that according to American Founding thought it's impossible for "Christianity" to have any organic connection to American civil governments because in order for that to be the case you have to first define "Christianity" and the doctrine of unalienable rights of conscience forbids government from doing this.
But secondarily, in the alternative, if we conclude government does indeed have some sort of organic connection to "Christianity," then the American Founding civil understanding of "Christianity" must include various heretical doctrines like Arianism, Socianianism, Universalism, syncretism, the notion that the Bible is fallible, that would be unacceptable to Christians like you. In short, in America is founded on ANY notion of Christianity, it's the heretical idea that all good people are Christian, regardless of whether they define or understand themselves as such.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | September 6, 2008 6:56 PM
Here are some quotations that illustrate this notion of Founding era "Christianity" that equated mere virtue with Christianity:
"I believe with Justin Martyr, that all good men are Christians, and I believe there have been, and are, good men in all nations, sincere and conscientious."
- John Adams to Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.
"Every religion consists of moral precepts, and of dogmas. In the first they all agree. All forbid us to murder, steal, plunder, bear false witness &ca. and these are the articles necessary for the preservation of order, justice, and happiness in society. In their particular dogmas all differ; no two professing the same. These respect vestments, ceremonies, physical opinions, and metaphysical speculations, totally unconnected with morality, and unimportant to the legitimate objects of society. Yet these are the questions on which have hung the bitter schisms of Nazarenes, Socinians, Arians, Athanasians in former times, and now of Trinitarians, Unitarians, Catholics, Lutherans, Calvinists, Methodists, Baptists, Quakers &c. Among the Mahometans we are told that thousands fell victims to the dispute whether the first or second toe of Mahomet was longest; and what blood, how many human lives have the words 'this do in remembrance of me' cost the Christian world!...We see good men in all religions, and as many in one as another. It is then a matter of principle with me to avoid disturbing the tranquility of others by the expression of any opinion on the [unimportant points] innocent questions on which we schismatize, and think it enough to hold fast to those moral precepts which are of the essence of Christianity, and of all other religions."
- Thomas Jefferson to James Fishback, Sept. 27, 1809
"Here is my Creed: I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That He governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we can render to him, is doing Good to his other Children. That the Soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental Principles of all sound Religion, and I regard them as you do, in whatever Sect I meet with them."
- Benjamin Franklin to Ezra Stiles, March 9. 1790.
"My fundamental principle would be the reverse of Calvin's, that we are to be saved by our good works which are within our power, and not by our faith which is not within our power."
- Thomas Jefferson to Thomas B. Parker, May 15, 1819.
"No point of Faith is so plain, as that Morality is our Duty; for all Sides agree in that. A virtuous Heretick shall be saved before a wicked Christian."
- Benjamin Franklin, "Dialogue between Two Presbyterians," April 10, 1735.
"...the design of Christianity was not to make men good Riddle Solvers or good mystery mongers, but good men, good magestrates and good Subjects...."
- John Adams, Dairy, Feb. 18, 1756
"Faith is recommended as a Means of producing Morality: Our Saviour was a Teacher of Morality or Virtue, and they that were deficient and desired to be taught, ought first to believe in him as an able and faithful Teacher. Thus Faith would be a Means of producing Morality, and Morality of Salvation. But that from such Faith alone Salvation may be expected, appears to me to be neither a Christian Doctrine nor a reasonable one....Morality or Virtue is the End, Faith only a Means to obtain that End: And if the End be obtained, it is no matter by what Means."
- Benjamin Franklin, "Dialogue between Two Presbyterians," April 10, 1735.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | September 6, 2008 7:08 PM
Defender Eagle - do you agree David Barton promotes a false sense of our history given his being caught countless times publishing false quotations and mischaracterizing the actual history of certain historical events?
Would you also concede that History Matters' false quotation for Madison which I noted above represents not only Madison's views, but Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance" and the impact it had on the VA commonwealth (their committing to a secular commonwealth)? Would you also agree that the impact "Memorial" and Madison had on ratifying a federal constitution which derives its powers from its people?
Would you agree all of these are factual assertions that are properly framed?
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 6, 2008 7:12 PM
I seriously hope that "Defender Eagle" takes these comments seriously and takes a good look and sites like this one and American Creation and seriously considers retooling his or her website to reflect what he or she has now learned.
It appears that Defender Eagle has been "hoodwinked" by David Barton et al.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | September 6, 2008 7:15 PM
I would also note that the author of the Holy Trinity decision, Justice Brewer, wrote a book later in which he was clear to say that when he said "this is a Christian nation" that only meant that we were a nation made up predominately of Christians. He made it very clear that he did not mean that this was an officially Christian nation:
Of course it's true that most Americans are Christian and have been since the first settlers arrived here. But that has nothing to do with separation of church and state, which is an enlightenment idea.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 6, 2008 8:56 PM