The Wall Builders organization was founded by evangelist David Barton. "One of the most prolific purveyors of bogus founder quotes is Christian theocrat David Barton. Though not a household name, Barton’s tireless efforts to construct a Christian origin story for the United States have been praised by the likes of Pat Robertson and Newt Gingrich (Church & State, 7-8/96). His 1989 book The Myth of Separation attributed bogus quotes to Washington (“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible’’), Jefferson (“I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens”) and Patrick Henry (“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”). Barton has also misattributed the “Ten Commandments” quote to Madison. In 1996 Barton admitted that these and nine other quotes he’d been circulating in his writings, videotapes and live appearances were either false or unverifiable (Church & State, 7-8/96)." http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/t ... ke-quotes/ Real historians don't take David Barton seriously. Furthermore, it's irrelevant what the founders religions were. Despite efforts by idiots like Barton to rewrite history, the founders did not create a nation based on Christianity. They even said so. "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Treaty of Tripoli, November 4, 1796, raified by Congress and signed by John Adams. I'm pretty sure most all of the founders were still alive in 1796. I know Washington and Jefferson were. I've never read a quote from any of them contradicting the Treaty of Tripoli. Had the founders intended to create a nation based on Christianity, they would have said so and put it in the Constitution. They didn't. They said the opposite and made sure that the constitution separated church and state. BTW, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and George Washington were not Christians. They were Deists. John Adams was a Unitarian. Unitarians don't believe that Jesus was divine.
I don't mean to interrupt the discussion, so don't mind me. This story seems to be just something thrown out there to make people feel better about themselves. Everyone gets to say how dumb it is, make fun of it a little bit, and try to make some points. This really isn't a story. It's just a excuse. Not like the social experiments people like to do, but not unlike it. Just games.
Here's something for you to read yes Franklin was a deist but later recanted his statements http://www.increasinglearning.com/frank ... rsion.html
The phrase “separation of church and state” was initially coined by Baptists striving for religious toleration in Virginia, whose official state religion was then Anglican (Episcopalian). Baptists thought government limitations against religion illegitimate. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson championed their cause. The preamble in Act Establishing Religious Freedom in Virginia (1786), affirms that “the Author of our Religion gave us our ‘free will.’” And that He “chose not to propagate it by coercions.” This legislation certainly did not diminish religious influence on government for it also provided stiff penalties for conducting business on the Sabbath. Nor did the Constitution inhibit public displays of faith. At ratification, a majority of the thirteen several and sovereign states maintained official religions. The early Republic welcomed public worship. Church services were held in the U.S. Capitol and Treasury buildings every Sunday. The imagery in many federal buildings remains unmistakably biblical. The day after the First Amendment’s passage, Congress proclaimed a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. The inaugural Congress was largely comprised by those who drafted the Constitution. It reflects incredible arrogance to reconfigure the Bill of Rights into prohibiting religious displays on public grounds. Hanging the Ten Commandments on the wall of a county courthouse no more mandates religion than judges displaying the banner of their favorite sports team somehow equates to Congress establishing that team as preeminent. Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society. They recognized that the several states did not share uniform values. We lived and worshipped differently. The framers were a diverse bunch with wildly divergent opinions on many issues, but eliminating the very foundations of America’s heritage would have horrified them. On few issues was there more unanimity. Where the French Revolution and its official policy of “De-Christianization” quickly devolved into bloodshed and oppression, here freedom flourished. Our independence was seen as the culmination of a march toward liberty, not a rejection of America’s historical cultural moorings. Our forbears embraced tradition and left local autonomy largely intact. Schools, courts and the public square were often overtly Christian and had been since their colonial beginnings. Few Americans would have tolerated a coercive central government infringing on their rights to post religious symbols on local schools, courts or anywhere else. Americans built society from the ground up. Many had fled oppression. The colonies instituted local self-government indigenously to confirm the rights resident in their persons and property. Few would have willingly been dispossessed by Washington of the very freedoms which they had just secured from London. Here men could and did rise as their efforts merited. Commoners were unshackled from feudal paralysis and freed to find God individually. Both the economy and church thrived. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans intertwined individual liberty with vibrant faith. “It is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.” Even non-Christian founders thought religion essential. None would have wished to upend the very basis for education, law or culture. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Americans understood freedom without morality quickly devolves into debauchery. Whether from sincere faith, or, prudence instilling an honest, law-abiding, responsible and hardworking populace, all esteemed biblical morality as the bedrock of self government. George Washington believed, “Religion and morality are indispensible supports” for “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.” Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed. His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.” Such were state matters. Freedom of religion was partly moral – protecting our most cherished liberty – and partly pragmatic. Religious animosity tears society asunder, particularly when church is affixed to government. With freedom of conscience assured, conflict becomes less likely. The First Amendment was an insightful compromise between church and state, federal and local authorities. The framers desired to avoid the controversies which engulfed Europe. As James Madison warned in Federalist 10, “The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; . . . A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, . . . ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power . . . divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to cooperate for their common good.” Thus the Constitution decreed that Washington had no occasion or authority to interject itself into matters as obviously local as doctrines of faith. Congress was not empowered to establish a church because the framers feared that concentrated power, whether favored religions, standing armies, banking monopolies, or an overarching federal government, invited tyranny. Church and state were distinct in that the Federal Government could not elevate one denomination over others. Nor could government and its flawed inhabitants usurp divine authority by harnessing politics to the church. Faith is no civil contract, but a personal matter not to be profaned by politics. http://www.forbes.com/sites/billflax/20 ... and-state/
@ Don There's nothing in that article that proves Franklin was not a deist. It even starts with "On March 9, 1790, just one month before his death at age 84, Benjamin Franklin penned a letter to Ezra Stiles in which he said that he had some doubts about the deity of Christ." The author then goes on to exam Franklin's writings for evidence that Franklin converted to Christianity, but presents nothing conclusive. The fact is Franklin himself said he was a deist and there's no evidence he converted. And again, it's irrelevant. The Constitution separates Church and state. Contrary to what Bill Flax thinks (The guy who wrote your Forbes article) I find it incredibly arrogant to insist that taxpayer funded courthouses display the 10 commandants. They're a religious moral code, not laws that the Constitution are based on. In fact, most of them violate the Constitution, starting with the 1st Commandment. They belong in a church, not a public courthouse. Taxpayer of different faiths and even no faiths who fund the courts go to court seeking justice, not religion. They shouldn't have to see the religious laws of a particular religion being promoted by a government institution which above all is supposed to be impartial. And yes, the Constitution doesn't inhibit public displays of faith. You're free to display your faith as publicly as you want. What you're not free to do is use government buildings, government spaces, or government jobs to promote your religion. You want to stand on the corner with a Bible and preach, you're free to do so. You want to pray in school? No one is stopping you. No one is trying to evict the church from society. You're free to worship whoever you want, whenever you want. What you are not free to do is erect monuments to your religion on public owned property or use your job a a public school teacher to preach on school time. That violates separation of church of state. That violates my right to be free from your religion. If you want to worship, do it on your time and your dime, not the taxpayers. And that's really the issue that religious fanatics have. It's not that they can't worship. They can. It's that they can't use the government to promote their religious views over the views of other religions. Too bad. Like it or not, the Constitution separates church and state. As it rightly should. We're a constitutional republic and a representative democracy, not a theocracy.
Currently, I cannot find any reference to this letter in the National Archive. It seems uncharacteristic of their communications, plenty of which can be found in the Nationsl Archive. Please provide a source for this letter that is not connected to a website promoting religion (as unfortunately these websites do not have a good track record of using legitimate quotes - particularly of the alleged religious views of the fiunding fathers). national archives benjamin franklin letter to ezra.
The anti American propaganda could be a reason for those kids xenophobia. They go on their favorite games or sites, have a look around. See a bunch of people they think are foriegn talking in a anti American fashion. Calling them dumb,questioning them about natives, guns. Pretty much everything. Usually all at once. It's hostile. But is not foriegn people. It's liberal people. They think they are progressive, and the only way to progress is their way. It's arrogance and rudeness mostly. If you disagree, oh boy. They are worse than American conservatives. By far.
Bill Flax Bill Flax, Contributor I explore the intersection of economics and culture. FULL BIO I am a Christian, a patriot and a defender of liberty who tries to keep a sense of humor through the madness. I live in Cincinnati, Ohio and work in the banking industry. I'm blessed with a beautiful wife who homeschools our three children. It has become evident Washington now embodies the gravest threat to freedom. We must restore the vision of the founders before it is too late. This prompted me to begin writing. In addition to Forbes, my work has appeared on American Thinker, RealClearReligion and elsewhere. I'm also a contributing writer for The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation. My book, The Courage to do Nothing, will likely be the most politically incorrect take you'll ever read on economics. This is the author of the Don's article. He is not a historian or any type of authority. He does specifically admit to writing for the purpose of promoting his version of what America is and means. Endorse and use his arguments by all means, but we can give no weight to him as a citable source.
We seem to have gotten of topic here, so let me just say the whole controversy over the Pledge of Allegiance being said in Arabic is total crap. These idiots would have had no problem with it being said in French or German (Maybe. They're pretty irrational people) but they wet their pants and hyperventilate over it being said in Arabic. Why? Because, OMG Arabs are MUSLIMS! And of course, Muslims aren't "real" Americans. It's just another example of bigots being bigots. It's that simple.
America was founded by Christians. Most intelligent people date writings of the founders. Of the constitution. In regards to race and religion. It's clear they were white. It's clear the majority were Christian. The settlers were Christians. Dominantly and undisputedly. This doesn't need citations. Unless you have zero knowledge of your people and country. Pledging allegiance to the flag means nothing to me. It's a clothe. A idol. Using my own spirituality. God(self), Family, Country(neighbors). I'm not sure why the pledge is even in religious discussion. If you are Christian, your god comes first. The flag is a symbol. A idol. The pledge is a type of worship. For me personally. Being raised American. I was taught to mind my own business. Try it. It works.
Yup all those deists and masons who formed the country on the enlightenment principles were like definately christians (giggle)
Maybe a better question would be this. Do we need a flag in every classroom? The school building does fly one already. I see the tradition in it, but let's be honest. A new group of Americans is on the way. The white Christians are on their way out. It will be more Latino Catholics, and Black Christians soon. Both with different ideas about how the past is interrupted. Although there are plenty of patriotic minorities. They also have a lot of external pressure influencing perception. With more conservative liberal views. Like the Catholic Church. One day, we will be grateful of the boundaries between church and state. For those reading this who are not already. I personally like individualism, and think people should openly be who they are. How else can we really know each other?
One thing about white people. They always take it with them. The demographic changes, are directly related to the economics forecast. Old America dies. New America. Well, I don't see it being wealthy. 18 trillion. Who gets control of the nukes?
As I posted before, Washington never said that. It's another fake founders quote that religious fanatics like David Barton and Bill Flax use to justify pushing their religious views into public spaces. The entire premise of Flax's article is crap. It basically asserts that without religion, specifically, the Bible, there is no morality and lawlessness flourishes. The idiot from Duck Dynasty, Phil Robertson, made the same argument just last week when he implied that because atheists don't believe in God, they have no moral compass for right and wrong. Anything goes. The irony is that it's people like Barton and Flax who don't seem to have a moral compass. They seem to think it's perfectly fine to use fake quotes and rewrite history in order to further their agenda. Contrary to what Barton and religious activists believe to be an accepted fact, that pre-1800 Americans were deeply Christian, Americans weren't all that religious in 1776. The rate of religious adherence around the time of the Revolution was only around 20% of the population. That's much less than it is today. http://tobingrant.religionnews.com/2015 ... timeframe/ Nonetheless, people like Barton preach that colonies and the founders were all deeply religious and that religion played a prominent role in every day life. It didn't. The reason they preach this myth is they're trying to sell a false narrative. It goes like this: "Back in the day, God was everywhere in society and America was a land of peace and plenty. It was a Golden Age in America. But ever since we started taking God out of schools and courthouses, we've become a society of lawlessness and moral decay. If we put God back into a place of prominence, everything will be fine again." It's horse crap. That Golden Age never existed and we're not anymore lawless or morally decayed than we ever were. What the religious right defines as moral "decay" is really their increasing inability to discriminate against and persecute people who act and believe differently than them, and what they really want is the government to help them to push their Biblical views of morality on everyone else. It's that simple.
Let's go with this. if you pledge yourself to this idol or false God as you call it aren't you breaking one of the commandments already?
Black buddy. Give it up. The premise here is not necessarily 'religious'. It is to acknowledge that no HUMAN can dictate rights such as life and liberty to its citizens. You and people of your ilk are all too willing to subject yourself to idealogues in 'power' and give them even more power. So that if they say, for example, 'I, as President, or Senator, or congressman, whatever, confer rights to you', then you are willing to accept the whim of people in power? Seriously? What's wrong with you? The fact that 'we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights', insists that NOBODY has the power to take them away. Get it? Moron
Don't be stupider than you have to be. There's no such thing as "unalienable rights". A human being has no natural rights of any nature. The only rights you have are the rights you can enforce yourself or collectively. Anyone stronger than you or your group can take them away. Ask any people that's ever lost a war. Furthermore, you seem confused. I'm not accepting "the whim of people in power". I'm telling you that the Constitution separates Church and State. If you don't like it, too bad. Get the votes to change the Constitution and quit whining about "whims of the people in power". Got it?