Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
My latest post on Christian nation falsehoods attracted commenters leaving yet more falsehoods. I've decided to move them up to their own post to debunk them. The first several came from someone using the name Derender and he starts out with one of the classic false quotes:
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ." - Patrick Henry
One of the most common false quotations passed around by the Christian Nation crowd. Henry never said this. Even David Barton has admitted that the quote has never been found in any of Henry's original writings. Henry was certainly a Christian, of course. In fact, he was a virtual theocrat.
But even if the quote was accurate, so what? Remember that Patrick Henry opposed the passage of the constitution and he did so largely on the basis that it was not Christian enough. This is a man who supported taxing people to support the churches, a battle he lost to Jefferson and Madison both in Virginia and nationally.
27 of our 56 founding fathers had Christian seminary degrees
Absolutely false (and I'd love to hear Derender actually name which ones had such degrees and from which schools). In fact, it seems that he can't even repeat the Christian Nation propaganda correctly. David Barton only says 24, not 27 (out of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, not the founding fathers in general). But Barton's reasoning is absurd. He counts as a "seminary degree" any degree from any university that began as a seminary. Harvard, for instance, started as a seminary in the early 1600s (along with Yale, Princeton and most of the other major colleges), but by the time the founding fathers went there it was a full university. The vast majority of them got degrees in things like law, not religion, but Barton calls those "seminary or Bible degrees" even if they were in a completely different subject. Highly dishonest.
Jefferson was trying to protect religion from the government, not the opposite
Actually, he was trying to do neither. He was trying to protect the individual from the imposition of someone else's religion under all circumstances.
Some people call Jefferson agnostic, deist, and other such things, but those ideas can be countered simply by knowing history.
This I agree with. Anyone who thinks Jefferson was an agnostic is utterly ignorant of Jefferson's own writings. Nor was he a deist because he believed in an active, provident, interventionist God. But he certainly was not a Christian by any reasonable standard either.
Jefferson did, in a way, contradict his own words about separation of church and state and actually clarified things in his second Inaugural address in 1805, three years after his letter to the Danbury Baptists. The words of this address are ignored by those who, today, still believe in a "separation of church and state" through Jefferson's letter. In his second Inaugural address, he states:"In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government. I have therefore undertaken on no occasion to prescribe the religious exercises suited to it, but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under direction and discipline of the church or state authorities acknowledged by the several religious societies. Many contemporary writers attempt to read back into the past a 'wall of separation' between church and state which, in fact, never has existed in the United States".
These words spoken by Jefferson should proof enough about the truth of separation of church and state.
Actually, this "quote" only proves that Derender, or whoever he is cutting and pasting from, is a baldfaced liar (or incapable of putting quotation marks in the correct place). Jefferson said no such thing. It's not as if Jefferson's second inaugural address is not available on about a billion webpages to check the accuracy. The first two sentences are accurate; the third is obviously someone else's commentary that someone incorporated into the text. And the first two sentences do not, in any way, contradict Jefferson's stance on separation of church and state.
After Derender blathered in several more comments about irrelevant subjects, someone using the nickname Right Wing Man dropped some more nonsense. Like this:
In 1892, the Supreme Court of the United States declared, "This is a Christian nation."
Yes it did, but what did that mean? If it only means that America is a nation made up primarily of Christians, that is very different from claiming that America is officially Christian. And Christian Nation apologists love to conflate the two. This was actually a throwaway line in Justice Brewer's ruling in the case, Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States; it was dicta, not part of the holding, and it had no relevance at all to the legal issue. But any claim that the nation is officially Christian is patently absurd; the constitution says no such thing.
During the War for Independence, Congress resolved to import 20,000 volumes of the Bible because "the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great."
This old claim has been thoroughly debunked by my friend Chris Rodda. You can read it here.
The New England Confederation stated that the purpose of the colonies was "to advance the Kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ and to enjoy the liberties of the gospel in purity with peace."
I'm always amused when Christian Nation apologists quote founding documents from the colonies rather than the United States. Most of the colonies were founded as theocracies, not free societies. And our revolution and constitution was, quite obviously, a rejection of both theocracy and colonization.
Harvard College required that each student believe that "the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life."
I can't imagine why this is relevant. Harvard is a private university founded as a seminary. What this has to do with the identity of the nation is....nothing.
John Adams wrote, "The Christian religion is...the Religion of Wisdom, Virtue, Equity, and humanity."
John Adams used the term "Christian" very broadly, declaring that all good people were "Christians" even if they were, in fact, Muslims or Hindus or non-believers. I doubt very much that Right Wing Man would consider John Adams a Christian if Adams told him what he believed. He rejected the divinity of Jesus, for example, and the authority of almost all of the Bible. He was a unitarian and a universalist.
Politics
Comments
But, Ed, they're not lies if you're telling them for Jesus.
Posted by: Bachalon | May 18, 2009 10:04 AM
@ Bachalon,
Is it a lie if you believe and have faith that it's true?
Posted by: Umlud | May 18, 2009 10:17 AM
To paraphrase that wonderful sentiment at places like Bergen-Belsen:
"Die schamlose luege macht frei!" (The bare-faced lie will set you free!"
Reichwing KKKristians, a plague on this nation.
Posted by: democommie | May 18, 2009 10:20 AM
Gosh, the place I did my undergrad at was founded as a Presbyterian seminary in 1841. Who knew my engineering B.Sc. was actually a seminary degree?
Posted by: Eamon Knight | May 18, 2009 10:21 AM
Yes. The fact that faith is required to believe it should say everything. In the age of google, there is no excuse for ignorance (or lies).
Posted by: Bachalon | May 18, 2009 10:23 AM
FYI, from The Harvard Guide:
Posted by: James F | May 18, 2009 10:30 AM
Why so surprised? The Bible is replete with stories of Jesus using lies and half truths to in order to bring even the most innocent, righteous and wise to serve him... Oh wait, I think I'm getting him mixed up with another Biblical character. No, considering the behavior of so many of his followers, I must have it right.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 18, 2009 10:31 AM
In 1892, the Supreme Court of the United States declared, "This is a Christian nation."
Talk about judicial activism!
Posted by: Flavin | May 18, 2009 10:34 AM
@ Bachalon,
Although I agree with your POV and believe that ignorance is no excuse, one could easily argue that Google allows the ignorant to stay comfortably inside their own bubble of ignorance, surfing the many false results that show up from a Google search. In some ways, it is more possible to be an informed ignoramus than before.
This "Christian Nation" meme is like the "No man-made global warming", "Evillution", "Vaccines kill people" and similar conspiracy-style memes. In fact, the very fact that there are facts published by experts only goes to show how deep the conspiracy is.
Posted by: Umlud | May 18, 2009 10:59 AM
What do these people gain by doing headcounts of the founders?
Posted by: barry21 | May 18, 2009 11:11 AM
And oh, if we only had more of that wisdom today.
Say rather that Google can't force you out of that bubble. Google is just a search tool, not the internet itself or its publishers, so it's not quite fair to blame it for problems it doesn't create (or necessarily solve, 'tis true).
People are going to gravitate toward what they want to believe; I'm guilty of it myself. But it's a shame* when you can confidently keep delivering false quotations and know that, while your target audience has all the tools to catch you out, they never will.
________
*I'm using that word the way race car drivers do; i.e., "That asshole ought to be ashamed of himself."
Posted by: Scott Hanley | May 18, 2009 12:05 PM
Derender? Oh shit, that deranged shit stain on the panties of life made quite a splash at Pharyngula a month and a half ago. Here is an example of his grasp on reality.
If you are in the mood for abusing your own brain, follow this link to find other posts that derender has appeared in before he got plonked.
Posted by: Janine | May 18, 2009 12:38 PM
In a piece from the WSJ (http://www.onenation.org/1198/111698b.html), dated 11/16/1998:
"Consider Harvard College. Over the past few years, black enrollment has averaged 8% and Hispanic enrollment 7%. Despite Harvard's longstanding commitment to affirmative action (recently reiterated in a widely discussed new book co-authored by Harvard's ex-President Derek Bok), these levels are substantially lower than their 12% and 10% representation in the general population, and there are periodic complaints by ethnic activists that Harvard is insufficiently committed to "diversity."
But these numbers become much less surprising when we examine Harvard's enrollment more closely. For example, Asians comprise between 2% and 3% of the U.S. population, but nearly 20% of Harvard undergraduates. Then too, between a quarter and a third of Harvard students identify themselves as Jewish, while Jews also represent just 2% to 3% of the overall population. Thus, it appears that Jews and Asians constitute approximately half of Harvard's student body, leaving the other half for the remaining 95% of America."
I think Harvard's position as a Christian Seminary is in danger of being tarnished a bit!
Posted by: democommie | May 18, 2009 12:46 PM
Re democommie
Just to be fair, some of those Asians may be Christians.
Posted by: SLC | May 18, 2009 1:22 PM
Jefferson was a true Enlightenment representative in that he clearly favored reason above all else including revelation, even if, as he states, it leads one to the conclusion there is no God. Of course as Ed correctly states Jefferson personally never took it this far. Many non-believers today mis-interpret this to claim he was an atheist or agnostic--although it's interesting to note "Atheist" was a undeserved nickname some of his contemporary religious types labeled him with (likely another source of confusion).
The point is Jefferson was a genuine free-thinker.
Plus if Jefferson were supposedly so devout, why did he take a pair of scissors to the New Testament and cut out everything he thought was reasonable and create the Jefferson Bible, claiming he was attempting to discover the diamonds among the dung? Modern translation: “There are many good things to be found in the genuine sayings of Jesus, the rest of the book is a pile of shit”
Posted by: neokortex | May 18, 2009 1:42 PM
Thanks. You actually do more for the cause of Christ than harm. We are glad that we do not exist in a so-called "Christian nation" because we no longer have to rely on these kinds of cultural supports to validate the church's presence in our society.
Theologian Stanley Hauerwas’s dictum can be helpful: “The first responsibility of the church is to be the church.” Hauerwas reminds us that before we go off trying to come up with whom Jesus would vote for, we first have to understand what the church is. And when we think about that, we start to realize that the church is a way of living together as the family of God that shows the world a more excellent way.
Of course, the church is far from perfect, but when the church really does begin to live in light of God’s forgiveness, it is not much to say that the church is a reflection of the peace and love of the triune God.
Posted by: Michael | May 18, 2009 1:53 PM
@ Michael - How does your comment relate to the post? Please enlighten us. Or not. That's fine. To paraphrase you:
Posted by: mercurianferret | May 18, 2009 1:59 PM
mercurianferret,
I believe Michael was referring to the principle that separation of church and state protects religion as well as secular government, a sentiment often articulated by the architects of such separation.
Posted by: DaveL | May 18, 2009 2:06 PM
I'm not terribly clear what mercurianferret(@17)'s point was either, but what struck me about is the repeated use of the pharse the church. Not religions or beliefs, but the church. (There's also no clear mention of non-belief.) It seems mercurianferret has one (unidentified) very specific "religious" institution.
That's called
theocracyintolerance.Posted by: blf | May 18, 2009 2:32 PM
Christendom, the religious culture that has dominated Western Society since the fourth century became the metanarrative for an entire epoch. This metanarrative defined not only church and state, but also the individuals and social structures in its orbits of influence. Members of this society were considered Christian by birth rather than by choice (i.e., the "founding fathers"). Taken as a sociopolicital reality, Christendom has been in decline for the last 250 years. This is seen in debates such as church-state separation, prayer in schools, the politically correct innovation of renaming Christmas as a solstice gift-giving festival, etc. When Roy Moore placed his 2.6 ton granite monument to the 10 Commandments at the Alabama Supreme Court, he found out just how dead Christendom is. Therefore, the death of the Christendom epoch actually spells the beginning of a new flowering of Christianity because the final props that have supported the culturally respectful, mainstream, suburban, middle-class, moral majority, right-wined nonsense have been removed. Furthermore, this makes your discussion of church-state relations irrelevant. The church wants nothing to do with the state and we do not want the state to have anything to do with us. So just let us be the radical, subversive, compassionate community of followers of Jesus that we are called to be.
Peace be with you.
Posted by: Michael | May 18, 2009 2:33 PM
This "derender" might just as well use the handle "derrida" for all the sense s/he makes.
Posted by: clamboy | May 18, 2009 2:33 PM
Michael, I've heard this one before. You wrote:
Come now, Michael. For two thousand years the hopeful followers of Jesus, frustrated that they suffered the afflictions and maladies of life even as the unbelievers do, have insisted that if only the church could get it right then the peace and love they expected to have when they first knocked on the door and let the blood wash over them would finally raise up a standard for all the world to see.
For two thousand years the church (meaning the body of believers, I do recall) hasn't mastered something as simple as trusting their god? Not even with all the promises like the one about "this generation shall not pass away?"
During my time in the evangelical church I heard many sermons and opinions concerning the true nature of the church, mostly along the line of my parenthetical in the previous paragraph. It eventually became clear that there was no consensus among the faithful except that they, the faithful themselves, constituted the "body of the church" while pastors and priests made up the "head" and all served the "heart or soul of the church," the triune itself.
Two thousand years, Michael. A reasonable person might expect that during such a span of time, some fifty human life spans at forty years per, practice assisted by guidance above must surely inform the faithful of what the church is, what it does and exactly how to go about it. In two thousand years it appears that it has not happened. Isn't this the least bit informative? Haven't the faithful had enough failure?
Why is the "more excellent way" still hidden from the faithful after two thousand years?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | May 18, 2009 3:08 PM
Michael: Which church are you referring to?
Posted by: jba | May 18, 2009 4:28 PM
@Bachalon
Fancy seeing you here. :D
Posted by: Whiskeyjack | May 18, 2009 5:16 PM
#10 What do these people gain by doing headcounts of the founders?
I heard an interesting quote just today:
"If America is a Christian nation then of course it would have a Christian army"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWcaCJoysKY (at 3:20/4:44)
Posted by: Lynn | May 18, 2009 5:22 PM
At jba--why, doncha know? He speaks of the One True Church of the One True God, silly.
All believers do. And you can believe them; no True Believer would join any other . . .
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | May 18, 2009 6:12 PM
Crudely Wrott,
Um, no they haven't. Those who read the bible knew that what is promised to Christians is not peace or prosperity or good health, but suffering.
Posted by: heddle | May 18, 2009 6:20 PM
Yes, heddle, they were promised suffering. Right about the time they were promised peace and joy. That was right about the time they were promised that if they asked with a pure heart, they would receive what they asked for.
My point remains. After two thousand years, none of the promises have made a shred of difference. Outside of the habits and anecdotes of the followers of Jesus, there is nothing to distinguish them from those who do not follow Jesus. Of course, you wouldn't know it from listening to the faithful when they claim that they have the gifts of the spirit and the promise of the blood. I walked among them, with them, don't forget.
Well it's as it should be, I grant. Who would deny the value of a dogma that they have voluntarily granted primacy? *raises hand tentatively and looks at floor*
A question. I ask honestly and not to set you up. You are obviously a thoughtful person and your posts here often inform me. Here it is:
I said the sinners prayer, had a conversion experience (albeit non-standard, but that's a story for another time), was baptized by total immersion, studied the scriptures and served the lord with all my heart back in the day. I have since backslid as far as one can without being criminal about it. I have found my backslidden state to be profitable and liberating, more so than my previous faith. When I die, what shall become of me?
The difficulty of answering questions such as mine were quite well known to the founders and authors of America. Such difficulties and the tendency of people to get quite excited about all the possible answers to the point of warring against one another, were assuredly part of the reason that we do not live in a theocracy. We may be a Christian nation by census data. We are not a Christian nation by law.
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | May 18, 2009 7:09 PM
I'd say you'll be as dead as the parrot in the Monty Python sketch.
Posted by: democommie | May 18, 2009 9:20 PM
Ed, stop lying. Just becuase some left wing revisionist historian does not like where our nation come from, does not mean that every has to believe it.
----------------
A little correction for you sir!:
During the War for Independence, Congress resolved to import 20,000 volumes of the Bible because "the use of the Bible is so universal, and its importance so great."
This old claim has been thoroughly debunked by my friend Chris Rodda. You can read it here."
So you want everyone to read an article on the Huff and Puff Post when you "scientists" with your beards and uncombed hair hate the Huff and Puff Post becuase of the medical articles? Is that not hypocrisy?
-----------------
I'm always amused when Christian Nation apologists quote founding documents from the colonies rather than the United States. Most of the colonies were founded as theocracies, not free societies. And our revolution and constitution was, quite obviously, a rejection of both theocracy and colonization."
What do you think a colony was? Listen, what was the difference in what the founding fathers believed and what the colonies believed when it came to Christianity? There was no difference. The colonies (which are now states) chnaged nothing when they became states. Coloies were not theocracies. If they were then they contradicted what silly leftists say that they left England for in the first place - to get away froma theocracy. They left for numerous reasons, but the freedom to worship was a main reason.
-----------------------
"John Adams used the term "Christian" very broadly, declaring that all good people were "Christians" even if they were, in fact, Muslims or Hindus or non-believers"
Okay, ole wise leader, I bet you cannot name one single Muslim or Hindu leader in the colonies can you? Did John Adams even know Hindus or Muslims? He probably knew about them, but I bet he did know know any personally. Your anti-Christian bias has you deceived my friend. The term "christians" meant exactly what it said. People who repented of their sins and recieved eternal life and forgiveness of sins becuase of Jesus Christ dying on the cross willingly and rising again to save them. Very broad eh?
very time atheists or revisionists get into something they chnage it to suit what they want rather than what actually happened.
Did you check out any of the sources at American Vision? Of course not, becuase that it not revisionist left wing oriented history.
Ed, say what you will, but America was not born as an atheist nation. You might wish it were that way, but it was not.
You probably deny the fact that the Capitol building used to be prayed in daily as well - in the name of Jesus.
Anything else that I or any of us "theocrats" got wrong? Want us to change anything else for you? Where di you get your sources for information? I'll look into reading them as long as they are not left wing biased. If you have any old references from before 1950, let me know, I'll take a look. But until, then David Barton and Gary demar are some of my sources. I do not agree with Demar on some issues like the Book of Revelation and the rapture, but history cannot be chnaged. You need to realize that.
Posted by: Derender | May 18, 2009 10:29 PM
Derreirender:
There are a lot of very polite and tolerant folks on ScienceBlogs who, though tested to the ends of their endurance and sorely tempted to reply to you in a fashion that is not brimming with christian love and tolerance, would never do so.
Fortunately, for me, I'm not one of them. Take your arguments (if that's what you consider them to be) write them on, in longhand on the back of 9 x 11 sheets of 3M Aluminum Oxide sanding sheets (36 Grit, open coat), roll them tightly, abrasive side out, and stick them up your ass, troll.
Posted by: democommie | May 18, 2009 10:35 PM
Ed,
Read these for more info on your disbelief in where America stood and should always stand. on the issue.
http://www.jeremiahproject.com/culture/heritage.html
You Christians think you know everything
http://www.renewamerica.us/analysis/jon/090518
http://www.stoptheaclu.com/archives/2005/12/26/best-of-2005-interview-with-a-former-aclu-lawyer/
http://www.oaknorton.com/foundingfatherquotes2.cfm
---------------------
The Bible is the rock on which our Republic rests." - Andrew Jackson
"We have staked the future of American civilization upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God." - James Madison
Posted by: Derender | May 18, 2009 10:49 PM
Hey Ed,
Debunk this. I want to see you debunk tis one. I want to hear what you have to say since you know so much about colonial Islam:
John Quincy Adams on Islam
by Dave Miller, Ph.D.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240151
----------
Oh and Ed, thanks for your peice on the American Patriot's Bible. I did not know that it existed until I happened upon this blog. I contributed to te cause of a higher power and bought one. Thanks.
Posted by: Derender | May 18, 2009 10:53 PM
Derender seems to have forgotten that it was pointed out to him on Pharyngula that David Barton is not, in fact, a historian - unless the meaning of the word has changed significantly.
Posted by: Wowbagger | May 18, 2009 11:00 PM
Many liberals do not what we conservatives mean when we say a Christian nation. We do not mean a theocracy. We mean that yes governmet and church were seperate to protect the two from each other. However, when we refer to a "Christian nation" are usually referring to the culture, not the government in power. Of course our leaders should look to God and pray and lead the country in a way that is pleasing to God raher than away from God. That is our belief.
Did not George Washington pray in battle?
The term Christian nation does not refer to a theocracy, it refers to the culture of the nation, not the government.
Posted by: Derender | May 18, 2009 11:02 PM
Is America no longer a Christian nation?
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909
------------
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. JOHN ADAMS
[T]he teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally….impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed. TEDDY ROOSEVELT
America was born a Christian nation – America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture. WOODROW WILSON
American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago. HERBERT HOOVER
This is a Christian Nation. HARRY TRUMAN
Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny. RICHARD NIXON
Read it and weep. Get back to me when you run out of tissue Ed. Let's continue the debate.
Posted by: Derender | May 18, 2009 11:08 PM
Wait, Richard Nixon? So spying on political opponents and then lying about it is a principle of Christian nationhood?
Derender, you've never answered my question about why a "nation founded on Christian principles" allowed slavery for so long. What part of Christianity says you get to own a plantation full of people to beat or rape whenever you want? And don't tell me it was all Darwin's fault: this was all long before he was born.
Posted by: Finch | May 18, 2009 11:22 PM
Just becuase some left wing revisionist historian does not like where our nation come from, does not mean that every has to believe it...A little correction for you sir!
I love it when right-wing trolls who can't even write a coherent sentence try to sound both cultured and tough.
Yo, Derender, we haven't forgotten that you couldn't back up your assertions in the last thread, and ran away when your arguments got refuted. And since your assertions are just as uninformed here as there, we have no doubt you'll be fading out of this thread too.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 18, 2009 11:26 PM
The colonies (which are now states) chnaged nothing when they became states.
Yeah, aside from the ideological bases of their laws, the laws themselves (ever hear of these things called "constitutions?"), the central government to which they owed allegiance, and the fundamental relationship between governments and governed, nothing much changed at all.
The above quoted sentence, in and of itself, proves Derender is a horse's derriere.
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 18, 2009 11:31 PM
Jesus Christ, Derender. Try the Federalist Papers. As much for their content as for insight into intellectual and political evolution that took place in plain sight.
Simply obvious is the fact that religion was purposely left out of federal consideration except for ceremonial occasions. Lip service was paid where lip service was due. The nation began agnostic because the intent was that all were welcome.
The founder's original intent, collectively if not in full accord, was that the problems of faith should and could be dealt with by an educated and liberated public without the constraints of law capriciously sprinkled with theocratic notions, however fashionable.
Rather sad that the task has proved so intractable that the believers constantly want more law to favor their
feelingsfaith while the true heathen wants equality under a fair law that favors not faith or fashion, but the consequence of actions.Posted by: Crudely Wrott | May 18, 2009 11:33 PM
"Derender, you've never answered my question about why a "nation founded on Christian principles" allowed slavery for so long. What part of Christianity says you get to own a plantation full of people to beat or rape whenever you want? And don't tell me it was all Darwin's fault: this was all long before he was born."
------
You are absolutely correct. Slavery was here before darwin. As a matter of fact slavery has been around a very long time. Remember how Moses led the slave Israelites out of Egypt? That was a log time ago. The Bible rarely mentions slavery and that is is wrong. The fact of the matter is that we are all slaves to sin. Slavery is a result of sin and fallen man.
Slavery in the Biblical days were commonplace though some slaves were treated better than others. Remember Jospeph who was sold into slavery but later ended up saving the country and his own brothers who sold him?
We never know why Gid allows bad things like slavery, abortion, etc to happen, but we do know that in the end when He returns all of that will end and things will return to their original intent - just like in the beginning when God created the universe.
We may not know the answers now, but we will someday. .
Posted by: Derender | May 18, 2009 11:36 PM
Derender,
John Adams on 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.”
– To Samuel Miller, July 8, 1820.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | May 18, 2009 11:41 PM
"Okay, ole wise leader, I bet you cannot name one single Muslim or Hindu leader in the colonies can you? Did John Adams even know Hindus or Muslims?"
Whether he knew Muslims or Hindus is irrelevant. What's relevant is Adams' views on the religions, in principle. And in principle, he thought they were both, like Christianity, valid ways to God.
Where is to be found Theology more orthodox or Phylosophy more profound than in the Introduction to the Shast[r]a [a Hindu Treatise]? “God is one, creator of all, Universal Sphere, without beginning, without End. God Governs all the Creation by a General Providence, resulting from his eternal designs. — Search not the Essence and the nature of the Eternal, who is one; Your research will be vain and presumptuous. It is enough that, day by day, and night by night, You adore his Power, his Wisdom and his Goodness, in his Works.”
– John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.
“It has pleased the Providence of the first Cause, the Universal Cause, that Abraham should give religion not only to Hebrews but to Christians and Mahomitans, the greatest part of the modern civilized world.”
– John Adams to M.M. Noah, July 31, 1818.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | May 18, 2009 11:47 PM
Derender:
Being a metaphorical slave to greed, gluttony, or whatever is not the same as literally being OWNED BY ANOTHER PERSON, who can whip you into a bloody pulp, sell your children and rape your wife whenever he feels like it.
So you're admitting your supposedly "good Christian founders" were full of shit?
Posted by: Finch | May 18, 2009 11:47 PM
In fact, since the Bible didn't say anything against slavery, one of the most unjust systems in human history, doesn't that mean that a strict "Biblical morality" is COMPLETELY USELESS?
Posted by: Finch | May 18, 2009 11:52 PM
One other thing Derender,
The context of the John Adams "general principles" quotation is more compatible with the broad definition of Christianity meaning all good people are Christian than orthodox doctrine. For one, during this time Adams himself was a militant anti-Trinitarian (Adams was a theological Unitarian since at least 1750, but was militantly so in 1813). For instance, what do you think of Adams bitterly mocking the Trinity:
“An incarnate God!!! An eternal, self-existent, omnipresent omniscient Author of this stupendous Universe, suffering on a Cross!!! My Soul starts with horror, at the Idea, and it has stupified the Christian World. It has been the Source of almost all of the Corruptions of Christianity.”
-- John Adams to John Quincy Adams, March 28, 1816.
But back to the general principles quote, here is what ELSE Adams said in that very letter.
"There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists, and Protestants “qui ne croyent rien.” [Protestants who believe in nothing.] Very few, however, of several of these species; nevertheless, all educated in the general principles of Christianity, and the general principles of English and American liberty."
Not just theological unitarians [Arians, Socinians, and "Priestleyans"] but universalists and deists, atheists and Protestants who believe in nothing were "united" under the "general principles of Christianity."
Methinks Adams and you have different understandings of "Christianity."
Posted by: Jon Rowe | May 18, 2009 11:53 PM
Just a quick comment on my last post: I don't want to offend any Christians out there by saying the Bible is useless. My point is: if you can't use the Christian moral system to argue against slavery, it's not much of a moral system.
Posted by: Finch | May 18, 2009 11:58 PM
Finch,
I don't at all believe in the orthodox biblical Christianity in part because I find the teachings on Hell to be so self evidently UN-believable.
BUT, Gregg Frazer, his minister John MacArthur and a few others who actually do hold to these premises give a convincing explanation as to why the Bible not outlawing slavery is not the "reductio" that should kill the Christian narrative.
And that is, the only thing of real import in this world is salvation; if a slave master is unsaved and a slave is saved, the slave, relatively speaking is in a MUCH better position, in a cosmic sense. That's why Paul's exhortation of slaves to obey their masters wasn't so "unreasonable" considering.... Slaves, don't worry about it, you are saved and that's all that matters. If you looked at how the early Christians like Paul lived for their faith, their lives weren't much better than that of a typical slave.
But it was also THIS understanding of Christianity, which may well be the proper orthodox, biblical/fundamentalist understanding, that led thinkers like Rousseau to make nasty cracks about Christianity as a "slave" religion.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | May 19, 2009 12:00 AM
Sorry,
This is John Adams' quotation in 42. That I didn't include a beginning quote makes it confusing to read (I'm taking a break from grading tests which are due at 10:00AM tomorrow!):
"Where is to be found Theology more orthodox or Phylosophy more profound than in the Introduction to the Shast[r]a [a Hindu Treatise]? “God is one, creator of all, Universal Sphere, without beginning, without End. God Governs all the Creation by a General Providence, resulting from his eternal designs. — Search not the Essence and the nature of the Eternal, who is one; Your research will be vain and presumptuous. It is enough that, day by day, and night by night, You adore his Power, his Wisdom and his Goodness, in his Works.”
– John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, December 25, 1813.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | May 19, 2009 12:04 AM
@Jon Rowe:
That's a very interesting analysis. I understand that Christianity was a religion that was originally popular among slaves in the Roman Empire, and a lot of its philosophy was built on what would keep a slave alive back then (don't talk back, don't cause trouble). I should have chosen my words more carefully: I didn't want to hurt anyone by saying their religious philosophy was bad. I was just annoyed by Derender's vague apologetics.
Posted by: Finch | May 19, 2009 12:12 AM
Finch,
Thanks. One reason why I respect Frazer & MacArthur even though their fundamentalist theology is anathema to me is that, as a philosopher, I respect when men can face up to hard truths, follow their convinctions all the way thru, avoid hypocrisy and accept "unhappy" endings.
On Romans 13, they both make air tight Sola Scriptura cases that rebelllion against is CATEGORICALLY forbidden, EVEN rebellion against Stalin or Hitler (the question is not "oh how horrible it would be if we had to submit to Hitler?" but "what does the Bible ACTUALLY teach?"). As such, according to the Bible, the American Founders sinned by rebelling against Great Britain. The Bible speaks of rebellion as being as bad as witchcraft. That means the Bible teaches the American Founders (at least when they rebelled against GB) were the moral equivalent of witches.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | May 19, 2009 12:18 AM
As one of the Christians who frequents this blog, I would personally rather that you just say what you think without being so concerned about hurting me or people like me with your opinion. You seem a polite, friendly-sounding person, not inclined to gratuitous insult. So if you think something about my religious philosophy, or anything else I say, is bad, please do say so. And explain your reasons. I may end up agreeing with you.
I think that's what honest discussions are for: sharing ideas and learning what we can from each other. Anybody so fragile as to be hurt rather than interested by your politely stated honest opinion probably doesn't stay long around here anyway.
Posted by: JuliaL | May 19, 2009 12:23 AM
Holy shit, I didn't have any idea that Derender was this much of a fucking idiot. But anyone who can make "arguments" like this is hardly worth the trouble:
Uh. No. It's not hypocrisy for many reasons:
A. I'm not a scientist
B. My hair is immaculately combed
C. I've never said one word about the Huffington Post and any "medical articles" they may have published. And even if I had, it would mean nothing because every author there is responsible for their own work, not the work of others. I have no doubt that the Huffington Post contains lots of articles that are utter nonsense, but that has precisely nothing to do with the validity of Chris Rodda's article.
If this is the kind of argument that seems reasonable to Derender, trying to hold a rational conversation with him would be as pointless as trying to teach a card trick to a dog. Neither is capable of what you are asking them to do.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 19, 2009 12:25 AM
Nietzsche was right; Christianity is a slave morality, and socialism nothing more than secularized Christianity.
Posted by: jws | May 19, 2009 1:10 AM
Posted by: Dan J | May 19, 2009 1:25 AM
Posted by: Dan J | May 19, 2009 1:25 AM
Holy crap, Whiskeyjack. I haven't seen you in ages. Are you still on OD? I'm using another name there currently. Do you still have my e-mail address?
Posted by: Bachalon | May 19, 2009 3:08 AM
Funny, most historians consider the Enlightenment to have wrought great improvements. The end of superstitions about diseases, the general end to the idea that clergy are infallible and may torture at will, and things like that, would be seen by most observers as great advances in western civilization.
Posted by: Ed Darrell | May 19, 2009 4:33 AM
With this new set quote-mines, many of which are false (e.g., the Madison quote) Derender has now become the most dishonest person I've ever experienced.
In spite of our previously showing Derender his earlier quote-mines were lies and pointing out his resources do not honestly trove primary sources but instead publish propaganda (two terms I doubt he can even define), he's come back with more false quotes while cowardly avoiding our pointing out his previous lies; this argues strongly he's not merely delusional like most Christianists, but instead a psychopath.
I continuously find it amusingly ironic how educated secularists follow the positive and universal admonitions and prescriptions in the Bible with far more fealty than your self-proclaimed social conservative, e.g., don't bear false witness against another and seek the truth being merely two.
I can only hope this person doesn't have any children to abuse with his delusions.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 19, 2009 6:53 AM
Ed, I'll have you know that I have trained my dog to do excellent card tricks! No, the main difference between Derender and my dog, other than the fact that my dog is a lot more intelligent, is that my dog does not lie. Derender, on the other hand, violently expells falsehood out of every possible orifice. He has been shown time and again that the quotes he uses are ficticious, yet he continues to use them. It has been proven that his version of history is the revisionist one, yet he still maintains it. The biggest lie of all is when he maintains that those who insist that the "Christian Nation" designation refer only to America's cultural history. Hardly. Those who use this phrase use it to argue for special legal privileges for their particular brand of Christianity. That's what they really want.
Nobody, not even the most rabidly anti-Christian, would disagree with the premise that the USA was, and is, culturally Christian. Educated and honest people point out that there was, from the very beginning, a tremendous diversity among those Christians, and many of them, including some of our nations founders, would not be considered 'True Christians' by the folks who toss about the "Christian Nation" nation language today. We also take note that folks like Derender contiue to lie about that diversity by manufacturing quotes or distorting founders views on religion. The purpose of these lies is obviously not to merely "acknowledge" America's cultural heritage. The purpose of these lies is to create a distorted view of that heritage as a peg on which to hang the notion that their particular brand of religion deserves special status under the law. That tactic is explicity anti-American, and I suspect also ant-Christian.
Posted by: Observer | May 19, 2009 7:29 AM
Bit late to the party, just want to say that if you're merely pronouncing something on faith and have no supporting evidence then it's neither a lie nor a truth. It's just an unsupported (and usually unsolicited) opinion, as worthless as any other.
Posted by: Cannonball Jones | May 19, 2009 7:47 AM
Cannonball, opinions can be wrong. They can also be lies. To me, there are two types of opinions. There are the kinds that are emotional and are very personal, e.g. "Autumn is the best season," "Orchids are the prettiest flowers." They have no factual basis, but they don't need it.
Then there are opinions which make a statement about the world or how it works: "Evolution is false," "The universe is only 6,000 years old." These are almost always based on facts as people understand them (even if they have them wrong). Though it is possible to have an opinion on an issue without having any information, but that's neither here nor there.
While the latter are certainly opinions, they are also factually wrong, and too many people tend to conflate the two (defending the latter kind with a "it's my opinion!" as if holding an opinion is a shield against examination or criticism).
This also goes for spurious quotes, especially if someone has been corrected on it (I don't think there's a person around who has used false Barton quotes or others and hasn't been corrected). If they continue using it, they are lying no matter what they believe or how strong their faith in the "truth" of it.
As an aside, I also think we tend to brush aside the second kind of opinion too quickly. As much as I despise the notion that every opinion is valid and should be considered (I'm under no obligations to consider the opinions of David Duke valid), there are times when they can be helpful, say a legal scholar weighing in on an issue and citing case to back that opinion up. While the outcome may not align with his opinion, and indeed other precedent may be invoked, that sort of thing is much different than an engineer with no background in biology talking about the veracity of evolution.
Posted by: Bachalon | May 19, 2009 8:08 AM
Observer stated:
Excellent overall synopsis until you speculate that Derender's form of historical revisionism to promote political views is possibly anti-Christian. This appears to be a 'no true Scotsman' argument where I believe the contrary, Derender is truly in fact a representative 'scot'.
I would argue that just like the W. Bush years defined conservatism in action when holding power rather than an abandonment of their ideology; 'lying for Jesus' to hopefully gain theocratic political power is not anti-Christian so much as it is a defining attribute of nearly all socially conservative Christians. The only exception I can think of is a subset of reconstructionists along with the dominionists who accept our actual history and instead argue to supplant our Constitution and its principles and ideals. These two groups are usually not dishonest about what they find repugnant about a free society, like our reserving our individual liberties and rights against the encroachment of religiously-motivated government power; which is a direct violation of their fantasy for government to enact and enforce their version of the human-created "God's laws".
The irony with people like Derender is they usually appear totally ignorant of the fact they hold the very same subversive political objectives of the honest reconstructionists. This delusion and/or virulent ignorance and gullibility makes them ripe for exploitation (e.g., Rove/Bush/DeLay and dominionists). The danger is when social conservatives wield power, they ignorantly provide opportunity for these reconstructionists to gain ground in attacking our principles and ideals like we saw during the Bush years.
Some of that fall-out still exists, like we see from the actions Chris Rodda in MRFF and now Robert Draper expose in the military, which leads to more of our American soldiers dying at the hands of jihadists given some evidence that we we are in fact on a Christian crusade.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 19, 2009 8:18 AM
True Christian? Would that not be a person who follows the life of Christ (whether you believe him divine or not) and lives that model? I think it's fair to say that there are few if any "True Christians" in this world.
Derrierender is a loudmouth and a moron who has managed to bring out the best in some folks--but, then there's me. Arguing with an idiot like him is one of the reasons I don't own a television--there's too much, by far, of his sort of idiocy on the airwaves.
Posted by: democommie | May 19, 2009 8:21 AM
Michael Heath,
I'm the last person who should be making pronouncements about what "True Christians" should be thinking. However, we should remember that historically American Christians have also been suporters of the idea of a secular state. Even today they are hardly monolithic in their opposition.
Posted by: Observer | May 19, 2009 8:47 AM
Ok, then I'll say it: the Bible is useless.
Posted by: Pi Guy | May 19, 2009 8:56 AM
Observer - I would argue that socially conservative Christians have never argued for a secular state. For example, they either supported ratification of the federal Constitution if they believed it would ignore their controlling their state theocratic powers, protect them from other sects in power of their state - power I would argue they lusted for themselves, or they argued against secularism altogether.
My point is that we can't make a general conclusion about Christians in general as you have done in both of your prior posts. When it comes to the relationship between church and state, socially conservative Christians have far more in common with fundamentalists from the other great religions than they have with liberal or mainline Christians, with few exceptions.
I'd like to repeat I found your overall argument in comment #60 to be an excellent synopsis and worthy of your consideration; I'm merely quibbling about your making a general observation about Christians which contradicts what we specifically understand about socially conservative Christians. Derender is well within the framework of his form of Christianity in terms of his delusions, rank dishonesty and political objectives; in fact as he's shown with his link, there is a whole cottage industry pumping out propaganda and abusing children. That industry has raised its head prior to the modern day; in fact previous periods which suffered from this phenomena provide the very fraudulent source material used by propagandists like David Barton.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 19, 2009 9:02 AM
I just noticeded that Derender actually trotted out that bullshit Madison ten commandments quote (I've been trying to avoid his smug arrogance).
There was a thread about that very quote here just last month.
Tell me, liar, how can we trust a word you say?
Posted by: Bachalon | May 19, 2009 9:10 AM
It's not a politically correct innovation to take Saturnalia, slap on the official imperial Roman state religion, the one emperors from Constantine on down would persecute you for not following, and rename it "Christ-mass" even though it never had any association whatsoever with the alleged Chrestos, the assumed-to-exist-though-leaving-no-trace Joshua of Bethlehem?
Oh, I forgot. Politically correct is what you call it when people try to defend the OUT-groups from power. It means the natural order of things is to side with the powerful.
Posted by: Marion Delgado | May 19, 2009 9:35 AM
Wow, Derender, your first comment was amazing! I could actually see you sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "IS TOO".
Posted by: Taz | May 19, 2009 5:43 PM
Those who believe this country started with only Christian leaders may be interested in the quotes of some of our famous ancestors.Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865) -"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma."
Benjamin Franklin, American Founding Father, author, and inventor -"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies." "Lighthouses are more helpful then churches."
John Adams, U.S. President, Founding Father of the United States -
"This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it."
Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat - “Religions are all alike – founded upon fables and mythologies.""I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."
William Howard Taft, U.S. President -"I do not believe in the divinity of Christ, and there are many other of the postulates of the orthodox creed to which I cannot subscribe."
Thomas Edison, American inventor (1847-1931). -"Religion is all bunk.""I cannot believe in the immortality of the soul.... No, all this talk of an existence for us, as individuals, beyond the grave is wrong. It is born of our tenacity of life – our desire to go on living … our dread of coming to an end."
James Madison, American president and political theorist (1751-1836) -"In no instance have . . . the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people."
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
Samuel Clemens "Mark Twain" -"Faith is believing something you know ain’t true.""It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
Albert Einstein, German-born American physicist -"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for a reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed."
My book on the subject can be seen at:
http://www.eloquentbooks.com/TheGospelTruth-ARealityCheck.html
Posted by: Harry Tomlin | May 19, 2009 6:13 PM
Harry,
Among other things, the Jefferson quotation is false and the Adams' quote is taken out of context.
We have to hold to the same standards as we hold the Christian Nationalists to.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | May 19, 2009 6:37 PM
Oi. I agree with Jon about the quotes Harry Tomlin offered. At least two of them are every bit as dishonest as anything Derender has offered. Please don't repeat such nonsense.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 19, 2009 8:19 PM
Jon and Ed,
Your sense of fairness as stated in comments 72 and 73 is why I have grown to respect both of you guys more than the multitudes of Church types I have met over the years. I really mean that. Interacting with both of you guys has changed my life.
Jon,
If rebelling against authority is against God's will according to the Bible then God is a liar. The second I thought that God wanted me to submit to or help Hitler because he was the "Authority" I would burn my Bible and and rightly so. I think Fraser gives God a bad name with this type of thinking.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 19, 2009 8:40 PM
KOI,
Don't worry, I haven't forgotten about your response to Frazer (it's with a "z" not an "s"). You will have your opportunity to further engage him.
Though, as far as I can see, his position is "the Bible says what it says regardless," and is immune from "reductios" like "how horrible it would be if I had to submit to Hitler or Stalin."
Posted by: Jon Rowe | May 19, 2009 10:34 PM
Jon and Ed,
Go to this site: http://www.wonderfulatheistsofcfl.org/Quotes.htm
You were wrong about my quotes. (dumb asses)
Posted by: Harry Tomlin | May 19, 2009 10:45 PM
Harry, the web site you linked to omits references to primary sources for most of those quotes. We require the Christian Nationalists to provide primary sources; you must meet the same standard.
Posted by: DaveL | May 19, 2009 10:52 PM
Harry Tomlin-
Finding a site that repeats the same false quotes does not make them legitimate. Find an actual original reference for them and you might have something. Let me show you why the John Adams quote is incredibly dishonest. It comes from a letter from Adams to Jefferson on April 19, 1817. Here's the actual quote in context:
He meant the exact opposite of what your out of context snippet implied. John Adams spoke time and again in his letters of his belief that religion was necessary for public virtue and morality. He was wrong in believing that, of course, but that still is what he believed. This quote is every bit as dishonest as anything David Barton has ever offered up. And our side is no better than the fundamentalists if we do the same thing we criticize in them by taking quotes out of context and distorting their meaning.
And again, the Thomas Jefferson quote is fake. All you have to do to prove me wrong is provide a reference to an actual Jefferson letter or document in which it appears. We require that of the Christian nation apologists; we require it no less of you.
I'm sure you're not being intentionally dishonest, you're just passing on quotes that can be found on a million websites. But they are still fraudulent quotes and they should not be used.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 19, 2009 11:02 PM
Irony alert: Harry Tomlin's blog is titled Seeking Truth.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 19, 2009 11:05 PM
Ed, is there a reputable online, searchable copy of the Federalist Papers?
Quote-mining seems to be a fun game anyone (and I mean anyone) can play. Why shouldn't I join in?. :( -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 20, 2009 1:23 AM
Ah, just the refreshing pause I was looking for at the end of a long day!
I think we should make "Thumping the 'Liars for Jesus'" a weekly feature. It's so much fun, and so easy to do! We can all join in and exercise our google-fu and skepticism . . . and in the process, show some trolls what intellectual integrity looks like.
What's not to like?
Posted by: Leigh Williams | May 20, 2009 3:23 AM
I always find it interesting that no one actually defines these 'Founding Fathers'. Christianists love to mention the signers of the Declaration of Independence,of course, but you want to remember that the government that that document generated was the Articles of Confederation, a government so flawed that, after just a few years, it had to be scrapped completely rather than fixed.
Many of the same men replaced it with the Constitution, based on having seen what didn't work in their first attempt. It was that document that worked, and it tossed the autonomy of states that was the basis of the Articles.
So when they babble about original intent, they fail to notice that it isn't the original, but revised intent that counts.
Posted by: Longstreet63 | May 20, 2009 9:17 AM
Hey Ed Brayton,
You do not list reliable references for your quotes either. In this Internet age,we all use the writings of others and can never know they are completely accurate.I do not accept you as an expert.
Posted by: Harry Tomlin | May 20, 2009 9:38 AM
Harry Tomlin, it may behoove you to lean the difference between a reference to original source and a link. Here's and example of a reference:
I tells you everything you need to verify for yourself what was written.
And here's a link, which is handy. But can be faked and should always be considered suspect.
Everyone gets deceived from time to time. In my opinion the best way to handle it when someone points out it has happened to you is to say thank-you and correct yourself. This will help you stop seeking truth and actually find it.
Posted by: Abby Normal | May 20, 2009 10:05 AM
"...the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." [Emphasis mine.]
The above quote comes from Article 11 of the Barbary Treaties, signed by the Plenipotentiary of president George Washington at Tripoli November 4, 1796, and at Algiers January 3, 1797. Senate advice and consent to ratification took place June 7, 1797 and final ratification by Washington himself on June 10, 1797.
That settles the argument completely as far as I'm concerned...
Posted by: Angel Of Mercy | May 20, 2009 3:33 PM
Michael Heath,
I agree with you about socially conservative Christians. I was merely trying to emphasize that not all Christians are socially conservative.
It's sad that socially conservative Christians take such a dim view of the concept of separation of church and state, because they've benefitted hugely from it.
Posted by: Observer | May 20, 2009 5:55 PM
Dingo,
http://www.constitution.org/afp/afpchron.htm
Jon,
I quoted many parts of the Bible that backed what I said. That is the problem with many of these Church people. They want people to think something just because the Bible supposedly says it. It is there viewpoint and often has more to do with the tradition they were taught than any kind of true truth seeking. It has to be logical to me.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 20, 2009 6:44 PM
Harry Tomlin wrote:
Actually, I did provide a precise reference for the Adams quote. You can look it up for yourself in any collection of the Adams/Jefferson letters or in its original form, and in full context, on any number of websites that reproduce the full letters. The only other quote under contention is your fictitious Jefferson quote, which I can't provide a reference for because it does not exist. It's up to you to provide a reference for that quote, not me. I don't care whether you accept me as an expert, I care whether the quotes are accurate are not. And two of the quotes you offered are not accurate.
If you had just admitted that you got the quotes second hand and didn't look up the originals, you could have shown yourself to be an honest person. Guess what? That's how I found out that the Adams quote was out of context. I copied it from someone else and assumed it was accurate until someone showed me the original letter in which it appears and showed me that, in context, he's actually saying the opposite of what that quote mine suggests. What an intellectually honest person does when confronted with such a situation is retract the claim and not repeat it again, which is what I did. That you've chosen not to do so proves that you simply do not care whether you are offering accurate information. That makes you every bit as much of a liar as David Barton.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 20, 2009 7:38 PM
Open:
1) The Declaration says once "nature's God" and once
"their Creator." Neither points out a specific god. I've never heard Abraham's god (god/yaweh/allah) called nature's god. Nothing here even comes close to implying christianity.
2) The Constitution never mentions the word god at all.
This means that when people end it with "so help me god," they are changing the oath.
And those who DO say it are going against the teachings of christ anyway:
Matthew 5 (Sermon on the Mount)
Oaths
33:"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.'
34:But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne;
35: or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King.
36: And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black.
37:Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Shut.
Even if the FFs were xians, so what? Sam Adams was a brewer. Are we a brewing nation? A nation of beer bongers? Well, perhaps ;->
And by our actions we are not an xian nation. GOP should stand for Grand Old Pharisees. Their actions are right out of the pharisees' play book. Anti-xian.
An xian nation would:
1) Outlaw divorce.
2) Take care of the needy.
3) Not place mammon above god.
4) Love its enemies
5) Turn the other cheek.
...
This (and the movie it is from) makes sense of it all:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paJUj8HJ4D8
I mean, jesus christ! I'm an Agnostic Quantum Deist and I do more stuff from the new testament than I've seen any of the hate spewing xians do.
E Pleb Neesta --> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3b56e0u0EgQ
GODISNOWHERE
Vote out the Gang of Five suckups to the credit card companies!
Posted by: E Pleb Neesta | May 20, 2009 9:02 PM
KOI,
I just linked to your post in my most recent post. Here is the way I see it: Lots of things in the Bible sound extremely illogical, irrational and HORRIBLE if true. There are other parts that are very nice sounding.
Fundamentalists like Frazer and MacArthur tend not to care how unacceptable something written in the Bible might sound to ordinary ears; they push the limit as far as it can go while still remaining members of polite, civil society (the Fred Phelps clan clearly cross that line).
I have nothing against "rational" or "enlightened" Christianity that can quote much of the Bible, but seeks for "reasonable" outcomes, even if some verses and chapters have to be taken with a "grain of salt," as it were. But that's what I see your case on Romans 13 (and the case of many many others) amounting to.
Frazer's and MacArthur's is more of an airtight, fatalistic, the Bible says what it says regardless of how unreasonable the outcome might sound approach.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | May 20, 2009 9:07 PM
Jon,
The thing is that it does not say what they think. I quoted a scripture that clearly refutes his claims from the book of Judges. Literal is the word they use to promote their traditions. His argument does not really make any sense. The passage in Romans states to submit to all authorities. He says disobedience is ok but the rebellion is not. Both are non submission which kills his whole point. If one form of non-submission is ok then why not another? Who says?
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 20, 2009 11:16 PM
KOI - Thanks for that. It's not quite what I wanted, but it's more than I expected, so I'm happy with that!
E Pleb Neesta - So swearing by one's head is OK (Matt 5:36) now we have discovered bleach and hair-dye? Come to think of it, Henna (Lawsonia inermis) was popular with Roman matrons to hide they're grey roots. Guess it was always OK. Don't tell me Jesus has joined the 'Liars for Jesus' club ;) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 21, 2009 12:10 AM
KOI,
The way I understand it is that the Bible teaches you submit to authorities and obey God; indeed God commands you submit to authorities. But what happens when authorities tell you to sin; well then that's the only exception for when disobedience is required. Rebellion is never okay because you don't need to rebel to avoid sinning.
Posted by: Jon Rowe | May 21, 2009 3:03 PM
Jon Rowe @ #93:
So, therefore, the American Revolution was a mortal sin against almighty god, and thus it is impossible for the USA to be a "christian nation". Christianity is not only not the founding principle of America, it is diametrically opposed to the founding principles of America, and anyone who says otherwise is bearing false witness. Thanks for clearing that up.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | May 21, 2009 3:07 PM
Phanotomreader42:
Wow! That is exactly the sort of bitch slap the KKKristian reich deserves.
Posted by: democommie | May 21, 2009 4:31 PM
Jon,
My point is that a literal reading of Romans 13 would state that there are no exceptions to the non-submission rule. If Frazer is admitting exceptions then it is not literal. Then the problem becomes defining Rebellion and Disobedience. If I can obey God by disobeying man then why can't I obey God by rebelling against man?
The Bible says to love your neighbor as yourself. This trumps all things except for loving God according to Jesus. How would loving your neighbor as yourself involve giving Jews up to Nazi's? People also love to leave out the time that Jesus whipped the money changers in the Temple. They were not telling him to sin. They were part of the authority at the time. He went after them because they were perverting what the temple stood for by ripping people off.
"Rebellion is never okay because you don't need to rebel to avoid sinning."
John and Peter did when they were told to shut up and did not in the book of acts. They were told by the authorities not to do something and did it again and were arrested. The reason they gave for their rebellion was that they were obeying God.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 21, 2009 9:56 PM
Jon,
My point is that a literal reading of Romans 13 would state that there are no exceptions to the non-submission rule. If Frazer is admitting exceptions then it is not literal. Then the problem becomes defining Rebellion and Disobedience. If I can obey God by disobeying man then why can't I obey God by rebelling against man?
The Bible says to love your neighbor as yourself. This trumps all things except for loving God according to Jesus. How would loving your neighbor as yourself involve giving Jews up to Nazi's? People also love to leave out the time that Jesus whipped the money changers in the Temple. They were not telling him to sin. They were part of the authority at the time. He went after them because they were perverting what the temple stood for by ripping people off.
"Rebellion is never okay because you don't need to rebel to avoid sinning."
John and Peter did when they were told to shut up and did not in the book of acts. They were told by the authorities not to do something and did it again and were arrested. The reason they gave for their rebellion was that they were obeying God.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 21, 2009 9:58 PM
There was this book that I read last year that seemed to make an honest attempt at sorting things out:
http://blog.beliefnet.com/bibleandculture/2006/08/the-faiths-of-the-founding-fathers----david-l-holmes-new-book.html
It's sad that the words "Faith" and "Religion" are assumed by so many to correlate with particularly insistent elements of the Christian religion. Or is that my own bias coloring my impressions of word usage?
Posted by: Blake Morris | July 8, 2009 4:06 PM
@EVERYONE..If you don't believe in christianity don't believe in it..But don't make fun of those that do believe..So what if America was or was not founded on christian principles..NONE OF YOU CAN EXPLAIN THE EXISTENCE OF PLANET EARTH AND HOW ANYTHING WAS CREATED SO YOU SHOULD ALL JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP..Nothing jus appeared and the big bang theory sounds like bull shit..and i know this has nothing to do with this article but i'm not here 2 dispute whether or not america is or is not a christian nation because frankly i couldn't care less..I'm mainly talking to all the christian-bashing people on here with no repect for people's belief..There is a higher power and i dont care how much you study you are the biggest idiot in the world if you believe this shit just popped up..INSTEAD OF CHANNELING ALL YOUR USELESS ENERGY INTO TELLING PEOPLE THERE IS NO GOD..WHY DONT YOU TRY AND FIND OUT THE HISTORY OF EARTH AND HOW THINGS CAME INTO EXISTENCE..UNTIL YOU FIND THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION..SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!
Posted by: Shawn | October 24, 2009 4:55 AM
Shawn, until YOU can provide any of these answers you're demanding, or the slightest speck of evidence supporting any of the bullshit claims of your cult, why don't YOU shut the fuck up?
Oh, yeah, because you're an obnoxious asshat. Neither you nor your belief deserves any respect. Respect has to be earned. And you haven't even come close. So fuck off. OR at least have the courage to engage honestly on a thread that hasn't been dead for months.
Oh, wait, never mind, I forgot for a moment that honesty is against your religion.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 24, 2009 5:46 AM
Quoted for irony.
Posted by: DaveL | October 24, 2009 6:31 AM
You might not know how the planet formed, douchebag, but I've got a pretty good idea. Moreover, I suspect that, while you think that the Big Bang sounds like bullshit, you probably cannot even say what the theory states.
Can you? Can you summarize the theory in say two to five sentences? Can you? Without going somewhere and looking it up? Can you say what the Big Bang actually states? Do you know what the major lines of evidence supporting the theory are? If you don't know these things, then how can you come in here and assert that the theory sounds like bullshit? How is that not being a completely dishonest dick?
Posted by: Josh | October 24, 2009 6:49 AM
Shawn's just another drive-by christard who thinks joining the jayzus club entitles him to the respect he can't seem to earn on his own. And we should all bow down before his bully god and STFU.
In short, Shawn is just another goosestepper for jesus™.
Posted by: Rick R | October 24, 2009 7:54 AM
@Shawn - No.
Posted by: Imrryr | October 24, 2009 8:28 AM
Shawn's well thought out and evidence-based argument for the existence of God and the non-existence of things that really happened has converted me.
(lengthy pause)
While Shawn spreads the Gospel, you people sit here and say you need "evidence"? Pah! What need for evidence ONCE YOU'VE GOT ALL-CAPS! Shame on you for picking on him. SHAME! You're so mean to him. Once you feel the LOVE OF THE LORD in your heart, you will only spread goodness throughout the WORLD, YOU FUCKERS! ETC!
Posted by: MODUSOPERANDI | October 24, 2009 12:09 PM
ISIAIh 41 BRING forth your IDOLS did they PREACH to you see they can’t speak they can’t DO ANYTHING all they do is cause confusion. spalms 115 and spalms 135 thier IDOLS are FALSE cant speak can't hear cant smell and those that make them shall become like them. Jeremiah 10 they nail their IDOL down like a scarecrow it can’t move can'...t speak can’t move must be carried these are nothing but the WORK of CON men.john 10 jesus christ sais his sheep hear his voice and another voice thy will not follow and if another person tries to preach to them they WILL FLEE from him. jeremiah 5 the priests bear rule on their own authority what will you do when your judged my word is not inside them. Now here is the kicker john 5 son of man voice goes back in time mathew 16 jesus christ claims to be the son of man.1 cor2 mind of CHRIST preached internally and john 16 sais the spirit of truth comes in the future. Ezekiel 13 lying prophets of ISRAEL my word is not inside them saying god sais god sais god sais wrote hoping mankind would CONFIRM their WORDS. all of this is EASILY verifiable.
Posted by: jeff | July 12, 2011 2:48 PM
Jeff,
When Ed titles a post "More Christian Nation Nonsense", it's not intended as a call for submissions.
Posted by: DaveL | July 12, 2011 2:56 PM
jeffy - your mommy says it's time to take your meds. :) - Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | July 12, 2011 3:02 PM
@106 -
The line "Son of man voice goes back in time" was so weird I just had to google it. Apparently, this guy is going around and posting this same thing to several other forums, including one related to professional wrestling.
Just checking to see if these quotes make any more sense when separated. The answer is no.
@DaveL - *snort* good one! :D
Posted by: Imrryr | July 12, 2011 3:33 PM
I love watching athiests trying to rewrite history. Face it, American government was founded on christian principals and morality. There is no getting around the words of the founders.
The good news for you is that they did not create an american theocracy. So you are free to practice whatever religion you wish or none at all.
Posted by: Brian | December 7, 2011 9:48 AM
"Face it, American government was founded on christian principals and morality."
Nope. They founded it on the enlightenment period philosophies of Holland and France.
This is why up until the 1950's, there was nothing about God on either your money or your pledge of allegiance.
Posted by: Wow | December 7, 2011 10:02 AM
Face it, American government was founded on christian principals and morality.
Really? Where in the Bible is anything remotely like the Constitution or the Bill of Rights described?
Posted by: Raging Bee | December 7, 2011 10:55 AM
You'll have to remind me where Jesus Christ advocated for a bicameral congress, and separation of the legislative, executive and judicial branches. Oh, and that a slave counted for 3/5ths of a free man for representational purposes.
You'll have to remind me where in American law it advocates turning the other cheek, or anything else advocated by Jesus Christ.
There is no getting around the fact that Christian nationists are liars.
Posted by: Owlmirror | December 9, 2011 12:57 PM
Owlmirror @ 113:
Oh, I hardly think that is fair.
Some are just stupid.
Posted by: NJ | December 9, 2011 1:15 PM