By popular demand

[Darth Wong]

Further, I submitted evidence, which everyone says is weak, not none of whom has addressed.

It has been addressed by simply pointing out that it does not prove what you think it proves. You seem to think we should try to discredit it somehow, since that is your method: attack the source. However, there is simply no need; one need not find ways to discredit or attack the sources of your quotes when they do NOT prove what you say they prove.

Why provide more when what has been provided has not been at all addressed - certainly not on a point by point level which is the respect I afforded the post I was replying to?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

I tried giving you a point-by-point rebuttal in my last direct post to you. I was rewarded with a stream of vitriol, generalized statements about our collective behaviour, and a refusal to directly address my post in any way, shape, or form.

Your reasonablness is indeed welcome, but it's a tiny ripple in an ocean of hubris washing in the other direction.

Speak for yourself; you have failed to address any of the key points. You say that "Christianity is a wonderful religion" somehow means "I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and saviour". You say that a total lack of evidence for a connection between A and B does not represent a solid argument for a lack of said connection. You say that the constitution and the law are based on Christianity, yet ignore repeated demands to back that up. You say that American culture is based on Christianity, yet ignore repeated demand to back that up.

You even argued that Thomas Jefferson himself did not support the ACLU's interpretation of the first amendment, even though his writings on the "wall of separation" are the very source of the ACLU's interpretation. And as usual, you "address" points by attempting to attack and marginalizing the sources (I particularly liked the clever way you try to marginalize the early leaders of the nation as not "founding fathers": George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc). Indeed, it is a very clever deception when you repeatedly deride Jefferson's contributions to the Constitution by saying he was out of the country at the time, since the portion of the constitution in dispute is the first AMENDMENT, which was added onto the original constitution and which was fought over in heated debates which ran for a long time and in which Jefferson was a vocal participant.

I remain open, you and RedImperator have begun to give me hope, but I remain firm that until and unless my evidence is accorded the same respect as the quotes I originally replied to, I'm not convinced that the field is level.

In other words, unless we accept your leap in logic that a quote which says one thing actually proves another, you will declare victory? Nice condition.

I will, however, in the meantime, try to find an online source for the church membership question. The claim comes from my readings and I will have to find a good source to verify it in a way you can check it out.

You could at least quote your readings. I would be very curious to hear how churches required a witnessed, public profession of faith as an adult in order to claim membership, as opposed to perfunctory ceremonies such as modern baptisms.

[Darth Wong]

GC, you have made several assertions:

1. The United States is a Christian Nation, by which you insist that you refer to "culture" rather than any official standing flip
2. The Supreme Court ruled that the United States law is based on Christianity in 1892, therefore it is. flop
3. The Founding Fathers were Christian, even though they did not insinuate Christianity into the Constitution. flip
4. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence are "obviously" Christian. flop

Does it not even occur to you that your own various propositions contradict one another on various levels? You ask why we deride your claims; you walk away any time a debate gets too intense, you rail at us for not debating point by point but you refuse to do so yourself, and you can't even keep your story straight!

As for those specific arguments:

1. If the US is a Christian Nation, then show which aspects of its culture are uniquely drawn from Christianity. This request has been made before, and you simply ignored it.
2. If US law is based on Christianity as you say and as supposedly proven by the excerpt taken so boldly out of context from SCOTUS, then show how you can use the Bible to derive US law. Surely it should not be difficult to do if this connection is as "obvious" as you say it is. Indeed, you say it is so "obvious" that no proof is required at all
3. If the Founding Fathers were Christian in anything but official membership on church rolls, prove it. You say that it was impossible to become a member of a church in the 18th century without some great public profession of faith; show your source, and show these "public professions" which you repeately cite as your evidence. I have already shown my evidence: they FAILED to incorporate Christianity into the Constitution in any way, even as a most tangential reference. This is HIGHLY anomalous for men of such supposedly strong Christian faith, and in fact there was virulent public debate at the time over this very issue, i which Jefferson was a vocal participant.
   
   In fact, while you're at it, please explain how you define "Founding Father", since you seem to think that Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Adams, George Washington, and Thomas Paine don't count.You have expended a great deal of effort to marginalize these men, arguing (among other things) that Jefferson should not be counted as an influence on the Constitution because he wasn't there when it was written. Of course, you conveniently left out the fact that the original Constitution DID NOT HAVE GUARANTEES ON FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION. That was in the Bill of Rights, added later as a set of AMENDMENTS to the original Constitution, finally ratified after YEARS of intense debate during which Jefferson was an active participant. And when faced with the absence of any evidence of their devout Christian faith (never mind the fact that the country's early rulers were largely well-educated aristocrats of the sort who tend to study philosophy and were sympathetic to the enlightenment movement in Europe).
4. If the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are "obviously" Christian, then show me something which is unique to Christianity in either document. For the umpteenth time, the Constitution does not mention God or Jesus or salvation in any way, shape, or form, and its amendments specifically prohibit the use of government resources in promoting Christianity; hardly what Paul would have done if in charge.

You seem to believe that the logical assertion "A and B are not connected" is no more intrinsically assumed than the logical assertion "A and B are connected", hence you simply say "nuh uh, YOU have the burden of proof!" whenever we accuse you of the "burden of proof" fallacy. However, that is simply not the case; no two ideas or objects in the universe are ever assumed to be connected unless evidence can be produced to demonstrate this connection. If I say that (for example) the Lord of the Rings is based on some other work of fiction, the onus is on me to prove it, and I can't simply say "it's obvious" and demand that you DISPROVE it.

You also seem to believe that bashing the board "atmosphere" somehow strengthens your argument. It does not; it is an example of the "ad-hominem" fallacy, and fools no one. This post, for example, in which you "responded" to my various quotes and arguments with a gigantic assault upon our collective character and a repetitive declaration of the superiority of the evidence which you never provided, is a textbook example of the ad-hominem fallacy. If this is the best you can do, then I don't see why you ever bother. In my last direct post to you, I addressed your points one by one, paragraph by paragraph, and rather than reciprocate, you simply resorted to the tired tactic of screaming, in essence: "you're all a bunch of scumbags, I answered all your points and you just can't see it".

I have repeatedly specificly stated on these boards that I do not contend that this country is Christian in ANY official sense.

I will not go into a completely academic subject on the Bible and common law. It's as obvious as the clock on the wall.

I NEVER aledged that America is or was an OFFICIALLY governmentaly Christian nation. It's not now - it wasn't then. What I do claim, and consider overwhelmingly obvious, is that it was a CULTURALY Christian nation. It customs and practices, worldview, and sociatal assumptions were indesputable Christian.

I defend the claim that common law in 18th century Europe and by extension America was based largely if not almost entirely on Biblical principles.

It's not really my style to get in this sort of slugfest. I'm not about to come over hear and be the kind of troll that I despise on TNZ. There was a certain amount of glee in finding out Raul's secret (for which he will recive no small amount of grief back there) but I really can't maintain the agressive facade for very long.

The stench of hypocrasy is overpowering.

You REALLY want to make a logical case?

Logic isn't on the table

And of course, my personal favourite:

My appeal to a well researched SC opinion is no different than your appeal to an interlretation of a translation of a document a century older than that which I appealed to.

Apparently, appealing to a conclusion taken out of context and supposedly based on the evidence is no different than appealing to the evidence ITSELF (in this case, the Treaty of Tripol translation which WAS SIGNED AND RATIFIED BY JOHN ADAMS).

[Darth Wong]

Oh, and by the way, for those who couldn't be bothered to read your little screed on what evil bastards we are for not bowing down and accepting your leaps in logic (back on page 1), let me summarize it with the following quotes from that post:

GC says:

[GC]

Wong, I have, of late, been having a perfectly civil exchange with a couple of reasonalbe posters on this board.

your attenmpt to come back and re-start the fight is, well, childish.

I have no intention of fighting with you, and I have, with the "childidh" comment, ceased to trade vitriol with you.

I don't care for it and it does nothing to advance any discussion.

Taking your two posts point by point:

1. The thing I think it proves is that the original list of quotes on this board proves nothing. How does it not do this? That list of quotes specificly said (and I repeat this for the umpteenth time) that it "illustrates that the claim that this country was founded on the Christian religion is a myth"...it DOES NOT.
It IS a myth, but that list of quotes does NOT PROVE it.
Why?
You made the case yourself in your first reply to me.
A list of quotes proves NOTHING.

2. Please link me your "point by point" rebutel which addressed each quote by every signer of the Constitution as I did for your list.

3. So Jeff's quote is the basis for their position? If I quote you from this board out of context somewhere else and manage to make you sould like a bigot does that make you a bigot - or me mistaken?

I "marginalized" you say Washington (whom I quoted and you did NOT) Adams (for whom I provided more quotes than you and for which two of your quotes bere blatant hatchet jobs which seen in their entirety reverse their contxt) Jefferson (whom I gave you) and Franklin (whom I gave you even though I quoted him saying of the concept that God rules in the affairs of men "I Firmly believe this").
How did I "marginalize" a guy I BROUGHT UP whom you did not even quote?

I specificly addressed the primary evidene that they were Christians and you, as is your custom, dodged by saying "So what? Prove it.' when you offer no proof for your assertions.
Specificly, prove that Jefferson participated in the debate over the First Amendment. I'm a bit more of a student of American History than you apparently are and I've never heard that claim before. You are so big on proof, provide some.

4. Did I ask for acceptance of my position in that quote? Perhaps your understanding of language is as shaky as your understanding of history? That certainly appears to be the case.

5. You will excuse me if that takes some time, I trust. I have read a GREAT many things in the last 30 years and only a tiny portion of those are in my possesion and at that it amounts to hundreds of books.
But then, I suppose that's all unelieveable right?
I mean surely with your bitter atitude you'll come back and ask me whats taking me so long to find the TV Guide or something.

Get over yourself man. It doesn't have to be this way.
-------------------------------------

As to your second post, I'm mystified that you don't see the lack of a contridiction in my statemtns.

Look, take an orginization like the boy Scouts.

If the scouts had been founded by a Christain (and they were) and that man set up a code of ideals he wished to promote, he need not have ever mentioned God or religion in his official charter to be a promoter of Christian ideals. It would have been a part of his very being. What he did would naturaly flow from who he was.

The government need not have a clause in it's official charter saying "Everything we do we are going to do the Christian way" It would have been second nature for a population which had the TINYEST majority of Europeans holding a religion which was not Protastant Christianity (except Maryland which was a Catholic haven) to have operated themselves in any other way.

Oh, and I'd love for you to quote where I said the Con and DofI are "obviously" Christian.

This bit of putting words in my mouth is getting tiresome.

Yes, I rail about point by point answers because my posts - some of them - have been up for a week and no one has done for them what I did for yours...when the debate gets hot, you just ignore whats already on the table and ask for more. I'm NOT putting anything else ON the table until you or someoen else gives me quote by quote and point by point the answers I gave you.

I don't have to nor do I intend to answer any of your subsiquent points until you address mine.

Just as one simple for instance on an extensive list of things you have not at all addressed is WHY You find a phrase in a Treaty (which I have addressed as appeasement language by a weaker nation to an agressor) to be more compeling than the very same Congress authorizing the printing of Bibles and encourageing the teaching of Religion in the schools?

Here's another, how come you still go around telling others that the Adams quotes and others you fawn over are evidence of a double life and that these men were privatly antagonistic towards religion while maintaining a public facade and you have yet to account for the fact that in at least two prominent cases, and I believe there are others, but at the least for Adams and Washington, their own personal private diarys not intended to be seen by any other man provide quotes which illustrate religious devotion. Also Washington's prayer journals and Adams' letters to his wife are very private instances where fraud would obviously not been in evidence.
Yet you ignore these because they obliterate your pet theories.


As to your whole little Jekyell/Hyde routine:

The short answer is that it is quite possible and not unreasonable in any sense for the common law to be based on the Bible (you will note that there isn't a mural of Hamarobi or Ceaser on the Supreme Court wall - it's Moses) and yet the country not be officially Christian.
Why on earth would the former imply the latter.
all it means is that it was the traditional system which was largely adapted in that it pretty much worked. The founders were great fans of Blackstone and Locke and others and adapted their ideas of European - especially English common law. Now, even if you argue that European common law was NOT christians despite the fact that EVERY LAST EUROPEAN NATION HAD HAD AN OFFICIAL CHRISTIAN RELIGION for centurises, some for mre than a thousand years - I suppose you can take a shot at it.
but it is YOU who are making an unfounded leap of illogic from A to an implied B when you presume that if I say "Common law is based on christianity" then I am by implication saying "America is an officialy Christian nation".
A by no means requires B.

Oh, and I note that by my saying I don't want to be seen as a troll I must be all sweetness and light with you or else I'm flip-flopping right?

Okay, I'll do my best to say only dice things about you lest you stray from the subject again:

"Darth Wong, most kind and honorable opponent, I precive that I have a wee bit of a disagreement with you. I'm ever so troubled by this nasty turn of events but I do hope it shant prevent us from getting on smashingly and perhaps sharring a spot of tea one day."

*sigh*

Even the "logic" quotes at the end are from two entirely different contexts as would be obvious if you weren't more intrested in being clever than in actually making points.

Again, as I said before, long ago (It seems like months) I appeal to the methodology. The documents were and are there. Hundreds of them.
you dismiss every last official document from the comission of Columbus to the Mayflower compact to the Constitutions of the states in favor of ONE LINE of appeasement in a completely insignificant treaty.

Like all your other points - it's weak. And you are either very deluded, very uninformed, or you know it. So everytime youcan you ask for more evidence because you know I'm not going to do that knd of research just to change the mind of a stranger on a BBS. You exibit a "don't confuse me with reality" mindset.
To which you are entitled.

But you are going to have to bring something to the debate other than "I say you are a bad debater" to get anything serious out of me.

Even if I have become embroiled in this board which I swear I never wanted to do, I'll not waste my time here trifiling with this sort of nose-thumbing.

[Slartibartfast]

It's intriguing how you make snide remarks about the foolish/trollish/flaming/unfair/illogic nature of this board, and then claim that you're trying to have a civil debate with a straight face.

[GC]

Oh, and by the way, for those who couldn't be bothered to read your little screed on what evil bastards we are for not bowing down and accepting your leaps in logic (back on page 1), let me summarize it with the following quotes from that post:

GC says:

Look ma!
I can make clever pictures just like the big boys!

Your case doesn't get any better because you are cute.

[Darth Wong]

Wong, I have, of late, been having a perfectly civil exchange with a couple of reasonalbe posters on this board.

That would be your Jekyll personality, I take it?

your attenmpt to come back and re-start the fight is, well, childish.

Pot calling the kettle black. You responded to my last point-by-point rebuttal with a giant ad-hominem attack.

I have no intention of fighting with you, and I have, with the "childidh" comment, ceased to trade vitriol with you.

No, instead you will simply ignore points, misrepresent the discussion, etc.

1. The thing I think it proves is that the original list of quotes on this board proves nothing. How does it not do this? That list of quotes specificly said (and I repeat this for the umpteenth time) that it "illustrates that the claim that this country was founded on the Christian religion is a myth"...it DOES NOT.

Then for the umpteenth time, show what aspects of the country's founding documents are uniquely Christian.

It IS a myth, but that list of quotes does NOT PROVE it.
Why?
You made the case yourself in your first reply to me.
A list of quotes proves NOTHING.

It proves that a connection which you think is proven ... is NOT.

2. Please link me your "point by point" rebutel which addressed each quote by every signer of the Constitution as I did for your list.

Please address the point that your quotes do not prove what you say they prove, hence there is no need to go over every single quote and repeat that simple fact. Moreover, your definition of "founding father" is highly questionable; after challenging you and one other user to defend your odd definition of "founding father" in which the most influential and visible of the lot are somehow marginalized, all I hear is that you both say it's defined in a legal signatory sense, without any kind of source to back up your definition. Who says it's defined thusly?

3. So Jeff's quote is the basis for their position? If I quote you from this board out of context somewhere else and manage to make you sould like a bigot does that make you a bigot - or me mistaken?

Many quotes are the basis for their position. If a quote is taken out of context and misrepresented, it reflects badly on the person who did it. It does not necessarily invalidate every argument of every person associated with that act.

I "marginalized" you say Washington (whom I quoted and you did NOT) Adams (for whom I provided more quotes than you and for which two of your quotes bere blatant hatchet jobs which seen in their entirety reverse their contxt) Jefferson (whom I gave you) and Franklin (whom I gave you even though I quoted him saying of the concept that God rules in the affairs of men "I Firmly believe this").

And I have given quotes showing that if they believed in a God, it was certainly not the Christian one. I have never claimed that these men were atheists; I only claim that they are not Christian. You, on the other hand, make a specific claim of a SPECIFIC religious affiliation; the burden of proof is upon you to show that this is true, and for the umpteenth time, you will need to do better than showing quotes which could mean anything from deism to political games, particularly in light of contradictory quotes.

How did I "marginalize" a guy I BROUGHT UP whom you did not even quote?

You insist that the known deists of the American Revolution and foundation of the country are somehow not important, even if they were critical to the particular facets of the constitution relevant to the discussion, ie- the first amendment.

I specificly addressed the primary evidene that they were Christians and you, as is your custom, dodged by saying "So what? Prove it.' when you offer no proof for your assertions.

Specificly, prove that Jefferson participated in the debate over the First Amendment. I'm a bit more of a student of American History than you apparently are and I've never heard that claim before. You are so big on proof, provide some.

The First Amendment is based on the Bill of Rights, which Jefferson was well known to be instrumental in passing. Try harder next time.

4. Did I ask for acceptance of my position in that quote? Perhaps your understanding of language is as shaky as your understanding of history? That certainly appears to be the case.

5. You will excuse me if that takes some time, I trust. I have read a GREAT many things in the last 30 years and only a tiny portion of those are in my possesion and at that it amounts to hundreds of books.
But then, I suppose that's all unelieveable right?
I mean surely with your bitter atitude you'll come back and ask me whats taking me so long to find the TV Guide or something.

Get over yourself man. It doesn't have to be this way.

Oh I'm sorry, is the "childish vitriol" back on again? Welcome back, Mr. Hyde. I see your asshole personality has returned. I have so much trouble figuring out which GC I'm talking to at any given time.

As to your second post, I'm mystified that you don't see the lack of a contridiction in my statemtns.

You say that America is not officially a Christian nation in any way, then you say that their entire system of law is based on the Bible. Stop bullshitting. That IS a contradiction, whether you'll admit it or not.

Look, take an orginization like the boy Scouts.

If the scouts had been founded by a Christain (and they were) and that man set up a code of ideals he wished to promote, he need not have ever mentioned God or religion in his official charter to be a promoter of Christian ideals. It would have been a part of his very being. What he did would naturaly flow from who he was.

But the Scouts do openly describe God or religion in their official charter, and they certainly have no special stipulations about allowing religious freedom. The American Boy Scouts are an obviously Christian institution. Thank you for providing the necessary contrast with the American government.

The government need not have a clause in it's official charter saying "Everything we do we are going to do the Christian way" It would have been second nature for a population which had the TINYEST majority of Europeans holding a religion which was not Protastant Christianity (except Maryland which was a Catholic haven) to have operated themselves in any other way.

Then perhaps you should answer my umpteenth demand to show which parts of the Constitution are based on the Bible.

Oh, and I'd love for you to quote where I said the Con and DofI are "obviously" Christian.

You said that the laws of the country are obviously Christian.

This bit of putting words in my mouth is getting tiresome.

This bit of nitpicking and ignoring repeated demands to substantiate the "obvious" connections you repeatedly cite is getting tiresome.

Yes, I rail about point by point answers because my posts - some of them - have been up for a week and no one has done for them what I did for yours...when the debate gets hot, you just ignore whats already on the table and ask for more. I'm NOT putting anything else ON the table until you or someoen else gives me quote by quote and point by point the answers I gave you.

More mindless claims of superior tactics. I answered a post on the first page point by point, and how did you respond? With a long-winded ad-hominem attack.

I don't have to nor do I intend to answer any of your subsiquent points until you address mine.

I have. You simply refuse to admit that pointing out that there is a difference between "probably believes in some sort of God" and "is a Christian".

Just as one simple for instance on an extensive list of things you have not at all addressed is WHY You find a phrase in a Treaty (which I have addressed as appeasement language by a weaker nation to an agressor) to be more compeling than the very same Congress authorizing the printing of Bibles and encourageing the teaching of Religion in the schools?

Thank you for proving that the people in charge wanted very much to influence government with theocratic mindsets, thus shattering your own claim that secularism won out in the Constitution because they were wise enough to know better.

Here's another, how come you still go around telling others that the Adams quotes and others you fawn over are evidence of a double life and that these men were privatly antagonistic towards religion while maintaining a public facade and you have yet to account for the fact that in at least two prominent cases, and I believe there are others, but at the least for Adams and Washington, their own personal private diarys not intended to be seen by any other man provide quotes which illustrate religious devotion. Also Washington's prayer journals and Adams' letters to his wife are very private instances where fraud would obviously not been in evidence.

Yet you ignore these because they obliterate your pet theories.

Could you re-post those specific quotes, please? I would like to see if they substantiate your case any better than the other quotes mentioned, which did not support it at all.

As to your whole little Jekyell/Hyde routine:

The short answer is that it is quite possible and not unreasonable in any sense for the common law to be based on the Bible (you will note that there isn't a mural of Hamarobi or Ceaser on the Supreme Court wall - it's Moses) and yet the country not be officially Christian.
Why on earth would the former imply the latter.

Then, for the umpteenth time, show which parts are based on the Bible and how.

all it means is that it was the traditional system which was largely adapted in that it pretty much worked. The founders were great fans of Blackstone and Locke and others and adapted their ideas of European - especially English common law. Now, even if you argue that European common law was NOT christians despite the fact that EVERY LAST EUROPEAN NATION HAD HAD AN OFFICIAL CHRISTIAN RELIGION for centurises, some for mre than a thousand years - I suppose you can take a shot at it.

Laws against theft and murder predate Christianity. Try harder next time. This is really too easy.

but it is YOU who are making an unfounded leap of illogic from A to an implied B when you presume that if I say "Common law is based on christianity" then I am by implication saying "America is an officialy Christian nation".
A by no means requires B.

If the law of a nation is based on a religion, then the religion permeates the official functions of that nation, WHICH ARE DELINEATED BY LAW. This is hardly a leap in logic.

Oh, and I note that by my saying I don't want to be seen as a troll I must be all sweetness and light with you or else I'm flip-flopping right?

Your flip-flopping is obvious for everyone to see. You can't even make up your mind whether you want to insult your opponents or haughtily remind us that you're above that sort of thing.

Okay, I'll do my best to say only dice things about you lest you stray from the subject again:

So it's ME that's straying from the subject when I point out what a flaming asshole hypocrite you are for constantly whinging about our manners while insulting us at every turn?

"Darth Wong, most kind and honorable opponent, I precive that I have a wee bit of a disagreement with you. I'm ever so troubled by this nasty turn of events but I do hope it shant prevent us from getting on smashingly and perhaps sharring a spot of tea one day."

*sigh*

Speak for yourself; I think you're a dishonest little shit, I don't intend to hide that assessment, and I will revise that opinion when you stop acting like this.

Even the "logic" quotes at the end are from two entirely different contexts as would be obvious if you weren't more intrested in being clever than in actually making points.

Funny how those contexts don't change the fact that you accuse others of being illogical while steadfastly refusing to use logic yourself or even recognize logical flaws pointed out in your arguments.

Again, as I said before, long ago (It seems like months) I appeal to the methodology. The documents were and are there. Hundreds of them.
you dismiss every last official document from the comission of Columbus to the Mayflower compact to the Constitutions of the states in favor of ONE LINE of appeasement in a completely insignificant treaty.

Bullshit; I dismiss documents subservient to the First Amendment for what they are.

Like all your other points - it's weak. And you are either very deluded, very uninformed, or you know it. So everytime youcan you ask for more evidence because you know I'm not going to do that knd of research just to change the mind of a stranger on a BBS. You exibit a "don't confuse me with reality" mindset.
To which you are entitled.

Oh I see, we're back to the free-flowing insults again.

OK asshole, I'll play it your way. You bullshitted on the definition of "founding father" in order to pretend that numerous insignificant people are important. You refuse to admit that if a man says one thing on one hand and a different thing on the other, the most logical conclusion is to trust neither, rather than throwing one away and assuming the other must be the gospel truth. You refuse to admit that if a man believes in some sort of God, that doesn't necessarily mean he's Christian. You refuse to present evidence for any connection between the Bible and the law. You refuse to present evidence for your claim that it's impossible to be a member of an 18th century church without some public, sincere profession of faith as an adult. And after all of this whinging and bullshit and crying about how rude we are, you reserve the right to be as rude as you want and get mad at us if we respond in kind, because you're soooo superior to us.

Your whole presence on this board has been nothing but a gigantic series of ad hominem fallacies, redirection strategies, and mind games since Day One. You present mounds of evidence which are intended to be impressive through sheer bulk but which are really nothing more than a fallacy of distraction, as they do not prove what you think they prove. And then you fall back upon that mound every time your arguments are shredded, by screaming that if people do not accept your interpretation thereof at face value, they are somehow ignoring the evidence itself.

But you are going to have to bring something to the debate other than "I say you are a bad debater" to get anything serious out of me.

Speak for yourself; that has been your entire conduct so far, and in fact, that attitude has filled most of this post to which I am currently replying.

Even if I have become embroiled in this board which I swear I never wanted to do, I'll not waste my time here trifiling with this sort of nose-thumbing.

Ah, now we're back to the haughty expressions of superiority again. Please work out this issue with your alternate personality. Your schizophrenia can be irritating to observers.

[Darth Wong]

Look ma!
I can make clever pictures just like the big boys!

Your case doesn't get any better because you are cute.

And your case doesn't get any better just because you keep declaring your own victory. Just in case you didn't get the joke, which you obviously didn't. Perhaps you had problems thinking clearly while you were busy switching from your "dignified, haughty" personality to your "angry, insulting" personality?

[SirNitram]

Here's the real definition of Founding Father...

Main Entry: founding father
Function: noun
Date: 1914
1 : an originator of an institution or movement : FOUNDER
2 : often cap both Fs : a leading figure in the founding of the U.S.; specifically : a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787

Woops, GC's argument implodes.

[GC]

Here's the real definition of Founding Father...

Main Entry: founding father
Function: noun
Date: 1914
1 : an originator of an institution or movement : FOUNDER
2 : often cap both Fs : a leading figure in the founding of the U.S.; specifically : a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787

Woops, GC's argument implodes.

Oh?
I can't WAIT to see THAT logic.

Seems to me that:

"a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787"

Is EXACTLY what we've been telling you.

Where, exactly, is said implosion?

[Cromag]

Oh?
I can't WAIT to see THAT logic.

Seems to me that:

"a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787"

Is EXACTLY what we've been telling you.

Where, exactly, is said implosion?

Then why did you include supporting quotes from John Jay, William Penn, Noah Webster and Benjamin Rush? None of them were delegates (ie. members) of the Constitutional Convention.

[Darth Wong]

I can't WAIT to see THAT logic.

Seems to me that:

"a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787"

Is EXACTLY what we've been telling you.

Where, exactly, is said implosion?

The part where you deliberately have to ignore the first definition in order to pretend that it's 100% exclusive to the second definition. Looks like you played right into it.

Face it; the biggest "victory" you can possibly win is to argue that it was only the most PROMINENT founding fathers who were not Christian, as opposed to the whole lot of them including the obscure ones, and frankly, that's no victory to crow about. Because it still leaves us right back at square one: it is a myth that America was founded on the Christian religion.

[GC]

1. Nothing different here.
**********
2. "you will simply ignore points, misrepresent the discussion"...much as you have been doing for a week now.
**********
3. "show what aspects of the country's founding documents are uniquely Christian." ... They need not BE uniquely Christian. They were constructed withn a worldview that was saturated in Christian ideas. They could not possibly have been anything else. The men involved - even the Diest - were a product of their enviornment and their enviornment was overwhelmingly Christian.
***********
4. "It proves that a connection which you think is proven ... is NOT."
This doesn't even makes sense. You said, of my quotes that "you can't prove anything with quotes" yet this claim is notebly ABSENT in the thread which claims quotes prove something you want to believe.
**********
5. " Who says it's defined thusly?" See my last post before this one.
**********
6. "It does not necessarily invalidate every argument of every person associated with that act."
So? That's not what I said.
***********
7. " And I have given quotes showing that if they believed in a God, it was certainly not the Christian one"
You have done no such thing. The very best you have done is show they were critical of some aspects of Christianity. so am I. So I Billy Graham. So is the Pope. Big fat hairy deal. You have proved NOTHING in this regard except your propensity to read into a quote that which you want to see there. There are a lot of Christian denominations who make great screwups with exactly that sort of unfortunate talant.
***********
8. So, you fail to even be paying close enough attention to notice that the man I refer to as "I broguth up" is Washington, whom you have not cited, and whom I have not once remotely attempted to "marginalize"? This is a PERFECT example of how you shift tactics when you don't have an answer - either that or you are simply grossly unable to keep up with the discussion.
The men whom I have "marginalized", to be generous:
Allen: Was a marginal figure.
Paine: Was a recognized thinker in the months leading up to the D of I and had some influance on public thought but did not participate in any official act of the country save as a soldier.
Jefferson: A Founder, to be sure. But one who was absent from the construction of the Consititution. Yes he corisponded, and yes he was an influance on the thought of some of the men there. My attempt to "marginalize" him was an effort to point out to you the inconsistancy of happily accepting quotes by a man who wasn't there because he supports, so you presume, your position, yet ignoring reems of quots by important men who were there because they don't.
In other words, you have a selective assesment of the evidence.
****************
9. O-HO! I see!! You ask me for proof of something and harp on it over and over that I have not trotted out eyewitness testimony for the proeffesions of faith of a dozen or more men from 200 years ago and THAT is a reasonable demand. BUT I ask you to prove that Jefferson was influencial in the debate over the First Amendment and you come back with the simple statement that it "was well known."

This is how YOU respond to a request for proof, yet you deride Me on the issue.

I'm afraid that with that you have destroyed the last tiny shread of credibility you had with me in this debate.
**************
10. No, the entire system of law has a Christian influance - not "based on the Bible." Look, if you want to argue that every single thing in European common law predates Judeo-Christian influance...that even laws which might refer to sodomy or adultry or whatever go back to Greece or Hamarobi...go for it. I'm not an ancint history scholar - not that I believe you are either - so if you want to make those claims, do it. I won't even ask you for proof since you didn't bother to prove a "well known" fact from 200 years ago you obviously can't handle an esoteric fact from 4,000 years ago.
BUT, every European nation which supplied a significant number of settlers to the Americas had had an official state church , either Catholic or Protastant for at LEAST a thousand years. There is no way 2,000 generations of men can live in an official Christian state - even though most of them were only culturally Christians and not spiritually so, without being total indoctrinated in to Christian thought patters. These people made the laws and lived under the laws and when the government changed in any way it had to get more Christian influanced as it went along. Except for parts of Spain there WAS NO OTHER SYSTEM IN CHARGE.

If you SERIOUSLY wish to contend that all the aspects of common law which were in existance in Europ in 100 AD were still the major portion of the common law in 1600 AD, then you are quite simply, deluded.
Human nature DEMANDS the oppisite.

The ONLY people who would even entertain such a completely laughable notion are those who desperatly WANT to excercise Christian influance from history. Oh, they will happily concede that half of Europe packed up to go kill Muslims because they were Christians, but they can't believe a simple decree of the king or the Cardinal which became part of the law was influanced by anything latter than Plato.

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
*****************
11. "I answered a post on the first page point by point"

Oh? You did huh?
And it was alll ME who through out ad hominims...hmmm..let's check out that claim.
*
You FIRST WORDS to me in that post were:

"Look, the troll..." Who was it that was employing ad hominem again?
"an away like a mewling French baby..." You were saying?
*
Now, with your quote of my phrase "still not seeing..." you begin your "point by point" answer, problem is, I made the point previous to that one - that your boardie made a similar claim to mine which you had no problem with.

This point you ignored.
*
Then I quoted my first 6 posts on the subject at hand which disproved your alegations about me so you shifted gears. Note you said the "I claimed" then, when proved WRONG, you just REPEAT your DEMONSTRATED WRONG claim as if nothing had happened.
*
Next, you addressed my statement that they were almost all Christians by diverting:

What KIND of Christians?
The Same kind you are?
How do you know?

When obviously the type of Christian they are is irrelevant since you have claimed they were hostile to religion. You say my quotes of them saying many more "nice things" does not prove they were not hostile, yet you claim a few harsh quotes prove they were. Again, you boldly assert your quotes prove your point and then turn and deny my points prove anything..when the methodology is exactly the same!

To wit:
You post hostile quotes and say; "See? They were hostile. This proves it.'
I post non-hostile quotes, you say:' Quotes don't prove nothing!"

And you are so willfully blind you can't see what is wrong with that.
*
Finally, you ask me to provide something which amounts to days of primary research to find a specific affermation of salvation by faith. You would have a very difficult job of finding a simlar list for the 15 most prominent Christians in America TODAY if you dismiss those invoved directly in christian ministry. Let alone for 200 years ago. You deliberatly ask for proof you KNEW I would refuse to do the work to provide.
*
Did I say "finally"? Well, yes, that is how you ended your "point by point" answer..but...but...

That's not all the "points" that were there to BE answered.

1. I pointed out that the majority of mine were more releavent than the majority of yours.

You didn't even bother to make your defense of Jefferson's relevence here, and that's actually a halfway valid point.

2. I pointed out that I had quotes from Diarys which obliterated your "public facade" theory.

You ignored this too.

3. I addressed your relevant quotes indivindually pointing out

(a) That 2 of them were hatchet quotes in which the context was reversed

(b) That (2) of them were quite proper complaints about misuse of religion and only one of those was remotely related to governence

(c) that Madison's quote reflected his belief in seperation - which is not at issue here- but not at all "hostility" towards religion.

(d) That Franklin's quotes do not reflect hostility nor do they touch on the mixture of religion and government. And that any such claims for them do not account for his obvious inclination towards the God of the Bible expressed at the CC.

4. Then I addressed specificly the Treaty and contrasted it's unimportance in light of other official acts, All of which you ignored.

That's a total of 8 points, by my count, which you ignored, and - at best- three which you addressed.
So much for "point by point" answers.

Oh, and lets look at my long post full of ad hominem in reply to it. The sum total of my derogetory remarks include:

"Schoolyard namecalling"
Did you call names in a childish fasion?
As I quoted above, you did. Not an ad hominem if it's true, and it's certainly no worse than the invictive YOU started with.
Pot. Kettle. Blacker than the night.

That's it. That's my "giant ad hominem attack" my "a long-winded ad-hominem attack."

I'm so ashamed.
*****************
12. Oh? Re-post the specific quotes...the quotes you IGNORED in your "point -by -point" response to my first post on these boards? Really no reason for me to post them, your eyes obviously can't focus on them.
Why in heaven's name would I repost what is so easily obtainalbe to you?
****************
13. Where did I mention laws against theft and murder?
****************
14. My "insults" of you remain consistant. You call names, I say "You are just being chldish" you say "a giant ad-hominem attack!"
That's what's obvious.
Anyone who wishs to catalog the harse words you've said to me and the harsh words you've recived in return will find a dramatic and striking imbalance in your favor. And almost all of the things I say are direct specificly at the argument. If I say "you are twisting ligic" that's not just an insult, it's germain to the discussion.
***************
15. I'd like to see you make the same defense of :
"flaming asshole hypocrite"
"dishonest little shit"
"asshole" (all from this post)
and
"pussies and their "duelling quotes" bullshit" (your first post after my first one here)
"Or is the proper use of logic that far beyond your mental capacity?"
(Your first direct reply to me after I had said exactly ZERO that was hostile to you)
*************
16. Your sudden fascination with the first amendment is striking given that I went theough pages of your attempts to base your whole case on the Treaty of Tripoli without ever mentioning the First.
*************
17. "free fllowing insults"...if what you quoted preceeding this statement is what you consider to be insults than you really are too sensitive for one who like to trash talk the way you do.

a) My definition of the founders was substantiated by the dictionary ref. quoted above;
b) quite the contrary, my original and main assertion was that your preecious list of quotes proved nothing. thank you for finally admiting that. I trust you will be adding your opionion in that regard to that thread lest people be mislead by the illogic of it;
c) The evidence is obvious: over 1,000 years of Christian government indoctrinating every thought of virtually every non-native or non-African American.
d) The Church membership thing I'm working on, I told you it would take time - and predicted you would be impatient;
e) not "us" YOU. And those like you. At least two posters on this very thread have disagreed openly with me but have done so civily and without childishness. YOU have not. What you call "insults" from me pale MIGHTILY in comparison to the tone of your words addressed to me. You MAY claim they are justified, you cannot at all truthfully contend there is a real comparision;
f) I present mounds of evidence you can't bother to soil your hands with even to the point of asking me to repost in this thread quotes you ignored and probably NEVER EVEN READ in my first post.
Answer honestly - no one will know if you lie but you but answer honestly anyway - you didn't even READ those 75 quotes, did you?
g) What I think they prove? They proved that quotes don't prove anything about the relation of these men's thinking and the nature of the government -as you admitted just now. They prove that your claim of a double life is a faulty one, they prove that these men were not completely hostile to religion oas you imply. And you have not demonstrated differently.
h) I never ask for you to accept my interpretation at face value, quite the contrary, I invited you to pick them apart. the only thing which leads me to think that you might have to accept my interpretation is your continued refulsal to provide different interpretations - except to blow them off as a whole like they don't exist. That's not interpretation, it's evasion.

It's almost becoming fun watching you dance. Like watching a train wreck is fun.

[GC]

Oh?
I can't WAIT to see THAT logic.

Seems to me that:

"a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787"

Is EXACTLY what we've been telling you.

Where, exactly, is said implosion?

Then why did you include supporting quotes from John Jay, William Penn, Noah Webster and Benjamin Rush? None of them were delegates (ie. members) of the Constitutional Convention.

They serve as a counter to Paine, Jefferson, and Allen.

(Though I was under the impression that Rush was there...maybe he was n the D of I...I'll have to look it up. At the time I thought Jay was to but that was a brain cramp. I know better than that)

[GC]

I can't WAIT to see THAT logic.

Seems to me that:

"a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787"

Is EXACTLY what we've been telling you.

Where, exactly, is said implosion?

The part where you deliberately have to ignore the first definition in order to pretend that it's 100% exclusive to the second definition. Looks like you played right into it.

Face it; the biggest "victory" you can possibly win is to argue that it was only the most PROMINENT founding fathers who were not Christian, as opposed to the whole lot of them including the obscure ones, and frankly, that's no victory to crow about. Because it still leaves us right back at square one: it is a myth that America was founded on the Christian religion.

Ahhhh...so I should ignore the SPECIFIC definition in favor of the general one.
Not big on specifics are you?

And your "square one" isn't the square I started on. All you are doing is defining your terms diferently so you can claim to have won.

the "square one"[n] I[/b] started on was that the list of quotes you guys stuck for future reference and which RDJ brought to our boards does not prove what it claims to prove and that IF you clai it does then you have to explain away a far greater weight of evidence on the opposing side.

I've yet to defend this "myth" you crow over the dead body of. Few Christian do.
You just don't take the time to learn the context of what we say because "Christian" is such a nasty word to yu.

[Darth Wong]

And your "square one" isn't the square I started on. All you are doing is defining your terms diferently so you can claim to have won.

Why? Did I ever claim to know or care what the most obscure signatories on the Constitution believed? In any group, it is the most influential leaders who people care about. Perhaps no one has ever explained this to you?

I've yet to defend this "myth" you crow over the dead body of. Few Christian do. You just don't take the time to learn the context of what we say because "Christian" is such a nasty word to yu.

"Appeal to motive" fallacy. Look it up.

[GC]

For those who are not dancing:

CALVINISM IN AMERICA

Loraine Boettner

When we come to study the influence of Calvinism as a political force in the history of the United States we come to one of the brightest pages of all Calvinistic history. Calvinism came to America in the Mayflower, and Bancroft, the greatest of American historians, pronounces the Pilgrim Fathers "Calvinists in their faith according to the straightest system."1 John Endicott, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony; John Winthrop, the second governor of that Colony; Thomas Hooker, the founder of Connecticut; John Davenport, the founder of the New Haven Colony; and Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode Island Colony, were all Calvinists. William Penn was a disciple of the Huguenots. It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or Scotch-Irish origin, 600,000 were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition to this the Episcopalians had a Calvinistic confession in their Thirty-nine Articles; and many French Huguenots also had come to this western world. Thus we see that about two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in the school of Calvin. Never in the world's history had a nation been founded by such people as these. Furthermore these people came to America not primarily for commercial gain or advantage, but because of deep religious convictions. It seems that the religious persecutions in various European countries had been providentially used to select out the most progressive and enlightened people for the colonization of America. At any rate it is quite generally admitted that the English, Scotch, Germans, and Dutch have been the most masterful people of Europe. Let it be especially remembered that the Puritans, who formed the great bulk of the settlers in New England, brought with them a Calvinistic Protestantism, that they were truly devoted to the doctrines of the great Reformers, that they had an aversion for formalism and oppression whether in the Church or in the State, and that in New England Calvinism remained the ruling theology throughout the entire Colonial period.

With this background we shall not be surprised to find that the Presbyterians took a very prominent part in the American Revolution. Our own historian Bancroft says: "The Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans, the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the Presbyterians of Ulster." So intense, universal, and aggressive were the Presbyterians in their zeal for liberty that the war was spoken of in England as "The Presbyterian Rebellion." An ardent colonial supporter of King George III wrote home: "I fix all the blame for these extraordinary proceedings upon the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and principal instruments in all these flaming measures. They always do and ever will act against government from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchial spirit which has always distinguished them everywhere."2 When the news of "these extraordinary proceedings" reached England, Prime Minister Horace Walpole said in Parliament, "Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson" (John Witherspoon, president of Princeton, signer of Declaration of Independence).

History is eloquent in declaring that American democracy was born of Christianity and that that Christianity was Calvinism. The great Revolutionary conflict which resulted in the formation of the American nation, was carried out mainly by Calvinists, many of whom had been trained in the rigidly Presbyterian College at Princeton, and this nation is their gift to all liberty loving people.

J. R. Sizoo tells us: "When Cornwallis was driven back to ultimate retreat and surrender at Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian elders. More than one-half of all the soldiers and officers of the American Army during the Revolution were Presbyterians."3

The testimony of Emilio Castelar, the famous Spanish statesman, orator and scholar, is interesting and valuable. Castelar had been professor of Philosophy in the University of Madrid before he entered politics, and he was made president of the republic which was set up by the Liberals in 1873. As a Roman Catholic he hated Calvin and Calvinism. Says he: "It was necessary for the republican movement that there should come a morality more austere than Luther's, the morality of Calvin, and a Church more democratic than the German, the Church of Geneva. The Anglo-Saxon democracy has for its lineage a book of a primitive society — the Bible. It is the product of a severe theology learned by the few Christian fugitives in the gloomy cities of Holland and Switzerland, where the morose shade of Calvin still wanders . . . And it remains serenely in its grandeur, forming the most dignified, most moral and most enlightened portion of the human race."4

Says Motley: "In England the seeds of liberty, wrapped up in Calvinism and hoarded through many trying years, were at last destined to float over land and sea, and to bear the largest harvests of temperate freedom for great commonwealths that were still unborn.5 "The Calvinists founded the commonwealths of England, of Holland, and America." And again, "To Calvinists more than to any other class of men, the political liberties of England, Holland and America are due."6

The testimony of another famous historian, the Frenchman Taine, who himself held no religious faith, is worthy of consideration. Concerning the Calvinists he said: "These men are the true heroes of England. They founded England, in spite of the corruption of the Stuarts, by the exercise of duty, by the practice of justice, by obstinate toil, by vindication of right, by resistance to oppression, by the conquest of liberty, by the repression of vice. They founded Scotland; they founded the United States; at this day they are, by their descendants, founding Australia and colonizing the world."7

In his book, "The Creed of Presbyterians," E. W. Smith asks concerning the American colonists, "Where learned they those immortal principles of the rights of man, of human liberty, equality and self-government, on which they based their Republic, and which form today the distinctive glory of our American civilization ? In the school of Calvin they learned them. There the modern world learned them. So history teaches," (p. 121).

<snip>

It is, of course, not claimed that the Presbyterian Church was the only source from which sprang the principles upon which this republic is founded, but it is claimed that the principles found in the Westminster Standards were the chief basis for the republic, and that "The Presbyterian Church taught, practiced, and maintained in fulness, first in this land that form of government in accordance with which the Republic has been organized." (Roberts).

The opening of the Revolutionary struggle found the Presbyterian ministers and churches lined up solidly on the side of the colonists, and Bancroft accredits them with having made the first bold move toward independence.9 The synod which assembled in Philadelphia in 1775 was the first religious body to declare openly and publicly for a separation from England. It urged the people under its jurisdiction to leave nothing undone that would promote the end in view, and called upon them to pray for the Congress which was then in session.

The Episcopalian Church was then still united with the Church of England, and it opposed the Revolution. A considerable number of individuals within that Church, however, labored earnestly for independence and gave of their wealth and influence to secure it. It is to be remembered also that the Commander-in-Chief of the American armies, "the father of our country," was a member of her household. Washington himself attended, and ordered all of his men to attend the services of his chaplains, who were clergymen from the various churches. He gave forty thousand dollars to establish a Presbyterian College in his native state, which took his name in honor of the gift and became Washington College.

N. S. McFetridge has thrown light upon another major development of the Revolutionary period. For the sake of accuracy and completeness we shall take the privilege of quoting him rather extensively.[b "Another important factor in the independent movement," says he, "was what is known as the 'Mecklenburg Declaration,' proclaimed by the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of North Carolina, May 20, 1775, more than a year before the Declaration (of Independence) of Congress.[/b] It was the fresh, hearty greeting of the Scotch-Irish to their struggling brethren in the North, and their bold challenge to the power of England. They had been keenly watching the progress of the contest between the colonies and the Crown, and when they heard of the address presented by the Congress to the King, declaring the colonies in actual rebellion, they deemed it time for patriots to speak. Accordingly, they called a representative body together in Charlotte, N. C., which by unanimous resolution declared the people free and independent, and that all laws and commissions from the king were henceforth null and void. In their Declaration were such resolutions as these: 'We do hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us with the mother-country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the British crown' .... 'We hereby declare ourselves a free and independent people; are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing association, under control of no power other than that of our God and the general government of Congress; to the maintenance of which we solemnly pledge to each other our mutual cooperation and our lives, our fortunes and our most sacred honor.' ... That assembly was composed of twenty-seven staunch Calvinists, just one-third of whom were ruling elders in the Presbyterian Church, including the president and secretary; and one was a Presbyterian clergyman. The man who drew up that famous and important document was the secretary, Ephraim Brevard, a ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church and a graduate of Princeton College. Bancroft says of it that it was, 'in effect, a declaration as well as a complete system of government.' (U.S. Hist. VIII, 40). It was sent by special messenger to the Congress in Philadelphia, and was published in the Cape Fear Mercury, and was widely distributed throughout the land. Of course it was speedily transmitted to England, where it became the cause of intense excitement.

"The identity of sentiment and similarity of expression in this Declaration and the great Declaration written by Jefferson could not escape the eye of the historian; hence Tucker, in his Life of Jefferson, says: 'Everyone must be persuaded that one of these papers must have been borrowed from the other.' But it is certain that Brevard could not have 'borrowed' from Jefferson, for he wrote more than a year before Jefferson; hence Jefferson, according to his biographer, must have 'borrowed' from Brevard. But it was a happy plagiarism, for which the world will freely forgive him. In correcting his first draft of the Declaration it can be seen, in at least a few places, that Jefferson has erased the original words and inserted those which are first found in the Mecklenberg Declaration. No one can doubt that Jefferson had Brevard's resolutions before him when he was writing his immortal Declaration."10

This striking similarity between the principles set forth in the Form of Government of the Presbyterian Church and those set forth in the Constitution of the United States has caused much comment. "When the fathers of our Republic sat down to frame a system of representative and popular government," says Dr. E. W. Smith, "their task was not so difficult as some have imagined. They had a model to work by."11

"If the average American citizen were asked, who was the founder of America, the true author of our great Republic, he might be puzzled to answer. We can imagine his amazement at hearing the answer given to this question by the famous German historian, Ranke, one of the profoundest scholars of modern times. Says Ranke, 'John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.'"12

D'Aubigne, whose history of the Reformation is a classic, writes: "Calvin was the founder of the greatest of republics. The Pilgrims who left their country in the reign of James I, and landing on the barren soil of New England, founded populous and mighty colonies, were his sons, his direct and legitimate sons; and that American nation which we have seen growing so rapidly boasts as its father the humble Reformer on the shore of Lake Leman."13

Dr. E. W. Smith says, "These revolutionary principles of republican liberty and self-government, taught and embodied in the system of Calvin, were brought to America, and in this new land where they have borne so mighty a harvest were planted, by whose hands? — the hands of the Calvinists. The vital relation of Calvin and Calvinism to the founding of the free institutions of America, however strange in some ears the statement of Ranke may have sounded, is recognized and affirmed by historians of all lands and creeds."14

All this has been thoroughly understood and candidly acknowledged by such penetrating and philosophic historians as Bancroft, who far though he was from being Calvinistic in his own personal convictions, simply calls Calvin "the father of America," and adds: "He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty."

When we remember that two-thirds of the population at the time of the Revolution had been trained in the school of Calvin, and when we remember how unitedly and enthusiastically the Calvinists labored for the cause of independence, we readily see how true are the above testimonies.

There were practically no Methodists in America at the time of the Revolution; and, in fact, the Methodist Church was not officially organized as such in England until the year 1784, which was three years after the American Revolution closed. John Wesley, great and good man though he was, was a Tory and a believer in political non-resistance. He wrote against the American "rebellion," but accepted the providential result. McFetridge tells us: "The Methodists had hardly a foothold in the colonies when the war began. In 1773 they claimed about one hundred and sixty members. Their ministers were almost all, if not all, from England, and were staunch supporters of the Crown against American Independence. Hence, when the war broke out they were compelled to fly from the country. Their political views were naturally in accord with those of their great leader, John Wesley, who wielded all the power of his eloquence and influence against the independence of the colonies. (Bancroft, Hist. U.S., Vol. VII, p. 261.) He did not foresee that independent America was to be the field on which his noble Church was to reap her largest harvests, and that in that Declaration which he so earnestly opposed lay the security of the liberties of his followers."15

In England and America the great struggles for civil and religious liberty were nursed in Calvinism, inspired by Calvinism, and carried out largely by men who were Calvinists. And because the majority of historians have never made a serious study of Calvinism they have never been able to give us a truthful and complete account of what it has done in these countries. Only the light of historical investigation is needed to show us how our forefathers believed in it and were controlled by it. We live in a day when the services of the Calvinists in the founding of this country have been largely forgotten, and one can hardly treat of this subject without appearing to be a mere eulogizer of Calvinism. We may well do honor to that Creed which has borne such sweet fruits and to which America owes so much.

Footnotes:

1Hist. U. S., I, p. 463.
2Presbyterians and the Revolution, p. 49.
3They Seek a Country, J. G. Slosser, editor, p. 155.
4Harper's Monthly. June and July, 1872.
5The'United Netherlands, III., p. 121.
6The United Netherlands, IV., pp. 548, 547.
7English Literature, II., p. 472.
8Address on, "The Westminster Standards and the Formation of the American Republic.
9Hist. U.S., X., p. 77.
10Calvinism in History, pp. 85-88.
11The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 142.
12Id. p. 119.
13Reformation in the Time of Calvin, I., p. 5.
14The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 132.
15Calvinism in History, p. 74.

Emphesis mine

http://www.caledonianfire.org/caledonia ... ry/c7.html

[GC]

August 15, 1789 First Federal Congress

[House of Representatives]

The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.

The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows:

(Religious Reference)

Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.

Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. He feared it might be thought to abolish religion altogether.

Mr. VINING suggested the propriety of transposing the two members of the sentence.

Mr. GERRY said it would read better if it was no religious doctrine shall be established by law.

Mr. SHERMAN thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as Congress had 'no authority whatever delegated to them by the Constitution to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it struck out.'

Mr. CARROLL As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, a peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present constitution,... <GC note: This seems to imply that the thought before these men was the intrest of protecting religion rather than protecting government> ...he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the government than almost any other opinion he heard proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community.

Mr. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

Mr. HUNTINGTON said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction on it. The ministers of their congregations to the eastward were maintained by contributions of those who belong to their society; the expense of building meeting houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by bylaws. If an action was brought before a federal court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers or buildings of places of worship might be construed into a religious establishment.

By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and the free exercise of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.

Mr. MADISON thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word 'National' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.

Mr. LIVERMORE was not satisfied with the amendment; but he did not wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it were altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.

Mr. GERRY did not like the term National, proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought to his mind some observations that had taken place in the Conventions at the time they were considering the present constitution. It had been insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of government consolidated the union; the honorable gentleman's motion shows that he considers it in the same light. Those who were called anti-federalists at that time, complained that they were in favor of a federal government, and the others were in favor of a National one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others did not until amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats.

Mr. MADISON withdrew his motion but observed that the words single 'no National religion shall be established by law', did not apply that the government was a national one; the question was then taken on MR. LIVERMORE's motion, and passed in the affirmative 31 for it, and 20 against it.(5)

Strong support for the claim that the First had the specific purpose of banning the establishment of a specific national denomination.
Though they did not use that word since, bieng virtually all Protastants it would not have occured to them that, Islam, for instance, was a candidate for such an appointment, or even Catholicism.

http://members.tripod.com/%7Ecandst/1stdebat.htm

[SirNitram]

Here's the real definition of Founding Father...

Main Entry: founding father
Function: noun
Date: 1914
1 : an originator of an institution or movement : FOUNDER
2 : often cap both Fs : a leading figure in the founding of the U.S.; specifically : a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787

Woops, GC's argument implodes.

Oh?
I can't WAIT to see THAT logic.

Seems to me that:

"a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787"

Is EXACTLY what we've been telling you.

Where, exactly, is said implosion?

The part where you threw out half the definition, clinging desperately to one half of the definition of the phrase, desperately calling the peice of tinder you hang onto to be a mighty battleship, of course.

Mike's right.. You walked into this just as predicted.

[GC]

Baron Montesquieu of France was quoted by the FF's more than any source except the Bible. In The Spirit of Laws, he writes this:

But the intelligent world is far from being so well governed as the physical. For though the former has also its laws, which of their own nature are invariable, it does not conform to them so exactly as they physical world. This is because, on the one hand, particular intelligent beings are of a finite nature, and consequently liable to error; and on the other, their nature requires them to be free agents. hence they do not steadily conform to their primitive laws; and even those of their own instituting they frequently infringe...

As an intelligent being, [man] incessantly transgresses the laws established by God, and changes those of his own instituting. He is left to his private direction, though a limited being, and subject, like all finite intelligences, to ignorance and error: even his imperfect knowledge he loses; and as a sensible creature, he is hurried away by a thousand impetuous passions. Such a being might every instant forget his Creator; God has therefore reminded him of his duty by the laws of religion... Formed to live in society, he might forget his fellow creatures; legislators have, therefore, by political and civil laws, confined him to his duty...

The Christian religion, which ordains that men should love each other, would, without doubt, have every nation blest with the best civil, the best political laws; because these, next to this religion, are the greatest good that men can give and receive.

Montisquieu believed in man's wicked nature and in a theory of natural law drawn directly from God's law; this was the philosophical foundation from which the doctrine of separation of powers flowed.

Next to the Baron, the next most influincal thinker was Blackstone, whome many have credited with the theory of natural law. Blackstone made direct reference to the Bible in asserting human law was subject to Divine law.
Hamilton refers to this theory thusly:

Good and wise men, in all ages... have supposed that the Deity, from the relations we stand in to Himself, and to each other, has constituted an eternal and immutable law, which is indispensably obligatory upon all mankind, prior to any human institutions whatever.

Then there's John Locke whom certain of you have mentioned who was a Calvinist and shared the Baron's philosiphy; There's Samuel Rutherford whose Lex, Rex was flatout Calvinist covenent theory.


[BTW: Ongoing research contiues on the church membership issue. I've found several sources which make passing reference to having to SIGN statements of faith for Church membership (and these fellos did not SIGN stuff haphazardly. It was giving their solom word) but I want a fully developed, airtight, souce before I enter it into evidence]

[GC]

Here's the real definition of Founding Father...
Woops, GC's argument implodes.

Oh?
I can't WAIT to see THAT logic.

Seems to me that:

"a member of the American Constitutional Convention of 1787"

Is EXACTLY what we've been telling you.

Where, exactly, is said implosion?

The part where you threw out half the definition, clinging desperately to one half of the definition of the phrase, desperately calling the peice of tinder you hang onto to be a mighty battleship, of course.

Mike's right.. You walked into this just as predicted.

Riiight.
Far be it one might get SPECIFIC with you...nice safe generalities that don't make folks THINK too much are to be prefered.

OoooooooooK

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Riiight.
Far be it one might get SPECIFIC with you...nice safe generalities that don't make folks THINK too much are to be prefered.

GC, it's my obligation to point out that that, right there, is a load of crap. You weren't being specific -- you omitted most of the definition you gave. Nitram posted the full definition from the dictionary.

Come on, don't try that here.

[Queeb Salaron]

For the record... umm... A majority of federal laws are still based on classistic or religious (hand-in-hand?) ways of thought. I don't think our fundie friend was too far off the mark on that one. The rest of it, though... well... I mean, look at Rick Santorum and Texas law concerning homosexuality, and tell me that there's no Judeo-Christian influence in government.

::shrugs:: I suppose I'm missing the crux of something here. But the way I see it is this: If such an influence is present today, it had to come from somewhere. My bet is that it was indoctrinated into us (though maybe not by prominent political minds) over a cart-load of generations. I mean, it had to come from SOMEwhere...

[GC]

Riiight.
Far be it one might get SPECIFIC with you...nice safe generalities that don't make folks THINK too much are to be prefered.

GC, it's my obligation to point out that that, right there, is a load of crap. You weren't being specific -- you omitted most of the definition you gave. Nitram posted the full definition from the dictionary.

Come on, don't try that here.

With respect, the first definition is a general definition, the latter is a specific one:

Chevrolet:
1. An automobile
2. One of several types of automobiles manufactured by General Motors.

Republican:

1. One who favors a form of government known as a republic
2. One who is a member of one of the two major political parties in the United States known as the Republican Party.

President
1. Generally the cheif officer of a group or orginization
2. the holder of highest elected office in the United States.

See a pattern?
The more specific definition is more relevant in most cases.

[GC]

Preceding Section to previously quoted "Calvinism in America"

Calvinism and Representative Government

While religious and civil liberty have no organic connection, they nevertheless have a very strong affinity for each other; and where one is lacking the other will not long endure. History is eloquent in declaring that on a people's religion ever depends their freedom or their bondage. It is a matter of supreme importance what doctrines they believe, what principles they adopt: for these must serve as the basis upon which the superstructure of their lives and their government rests. Calvinism was revolutionary. It taught the natural equality of men, and its essential tendency was to destroy all distinctions of rank and all claims to superiority which rested upon wealth or vested privilege. The liberty-loving soul of the Calvinist has made him a crusader against those artificial distinctions which raise some men above others.

Politically, Calvinism has been the chief source of modern republican government. Calvinism and republicanism are related to each other as cause and effect; and where a people are possessed of the former, the latter will soon be developed. Calvin himself held that the Church, under God, was a spiritual republic; and certainly he was a republican in theory. James I was well aware of the effects of Calvinism when he said: "Presbytery agreeth as well with the monarchy as God with the Devil." Bancroft speaks of "the political character of Calvinism, which with one consent and with instinctive judgment the monarchs of that day feared as republicanism." Another American historian, John Fiske, has written, "It would be hard to overrate the debt which mankind owes to Calvin. The spiritual father of Coligny, of William the Silent, and of Cromwell, must occupy a foremost rank among the champions of modern democracy .... The promulgation of this theology was one of the longest steps that mankind has ever taken toward personal freedom." Emilio Castelar, the leader of the Spanish Liberals, says that "Anglo-Saxon democracy is the product of a severe theology, learned in the cities of Holland and Switzerland." Buckle, in his History of Civilization says, "Calvinism is essentially democratic," (I, 669). And de Tocqueville, an able political writer, calls it "A democratic and republican religion."

The system not only imbued its converts with the spirit of liberty, but it gave them practical training in the rights and duties as freemen. Each congregation was left to elect its own officers and to conduct its own affairs. Fiske pronounces it, "one of the most effective schools that has ever existed for training men in local serf-government." Spiritual freedom is the source and strength of all other freedom, and it need cause no surprise when we are told that the principles which governed them in ecclesiastical affairs gave shape to their political views. Instinctively they preferred a representative government and.stubbornly resisted all unjust rulers. After religious despotism is overthrown, civil despotism cannot long continue.

We may say that the spiritual republic which was founded by Calvin rests upon four basic principles. These have been summed up by an eminent English statesman and jurist, Sir James Stephen, as follows: "These principles were, firstly that the will of the people was the one legitimate source of the power of the rulers; secondly, that the power was most properly delegated by the people, to their rulers, by means of elections, in which every adult man might exercise the right of suffrage; thirdly, that in ecclesiastical government, the clergy and laity were entitled to an equal and co-ordinate authority; and fourthly that between the Church and State, no alliance, or mutual dependence, or other definite relation, necessarily or properly existed.”

The principle of the sovereignty of God when applied to the affairs of government proved to be very important. God as the supreme Ruler, was vested with sovereignty; and whatever sovereignty was found in man had been graciously granted to him. The scriptures were taken as the final authority, as containing eternal principles which were regulative for all ages and on all peoples. In the following words the Scriptures declared the State to be a divinely established institution: "Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God; and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldst thou have no fear of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise for the same: for he is a minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience sake. For this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God's service, attending continually upon this very thing. Render to all their dues; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor," Romans 13:1-7.

No one type of government, however, whether democracy, republic, or monarchy, was thought to be divinely ordained for any certain age or people, although Calvinism showed a preference for the republican type. "Whatever the system of government," says Meeter, "be it monarchy or democracy or any other form, in each case the ruler (or rulers) was to act as God's representative, and to administer the affairs of government in accordance with God's law. The fundamental principle supplied at the same time the very highest incentive for the preservation of law and order among its citizens. Subjects were for God's sake to render obedience to the higher powers, whichever these might be. Hence Calvinism made for highly stabilized governments.

"On the other hand this very principle of the sovereignty of God operated as a mighty defense of the liberties of the subject citizens against tyrannical rulers. Whenever sovereigns ignored the Will of God, trampled upon the rights of the governed and became tyrannical, it became the privilege and the duty of the subjects, in view of the higher responsibility of the supreme Sovereign, God, to refuse obedience and even, if necessary, to depose the tyrant, through the lesser authorities appointed by God for the defense of the rights of the governed."

The Calvinistic ideas concerning governments and rulers have been ably expressed by J.C. Monsma in the following lucid paragraph: "Governments are instituted by God through the instrumentality of the people. No kaiser or president has any power inherent in himself; whatever power he possesses, whatever sovereignty he exercises, is power and sovereignty derived from the great Source above. No might, but right, and right springing from the eternal Fountain of justice. For the Calvinist it is extremely easy to respect the laws and ordinances of the government. If the government were nothing but a group of men, bound to carry out the wishes of a popular majority, his freedom-loving soul would rebel. But now, to his mind, and according to his fixed belief , — back of the government stands God, and before Him he kneels in deepest reverence. Here also lies the fundamental reason for that profound and almost fanatical love of freedom, also the political freedom, which has always been a characteristic of the genuine Calvinist. The government is God's servant. That means that AS MEN all government officials stand on an equal footing with their subordinates; have no claim to superiority in any sense whatever. For exactly the same reason the Calvinist gives preference to a republican form of government over any other type. In no other form of government does the sovereignty of God, the derivative character of government powers and the equality of men as men, find a clearer and more eloquent expression."

The theology of the Calvinist exalted one Sovereign and humbled all other sovereigns before His awful majesty. The divine right of kings and the infallible decrees of popes could not long endure amid a people who place sovereignty in God alone. But while this theology infinitely exalted God as the Almighty Ruler of heaven and earth and humbled all men before Him, it enhanced the dignity of the individual and taught him that all men as men were equal. The Calvinist feared God; and fearing God he feared nobody else. Knowing himself to have been chosen in the counsels of eternity and marked for the glories of heaven, he possessed something which dissipated the feeling of personal homage for men and which dulled the lustre of all earthly grandeur. If a proud aristocracy traced its lineage through generations of highborn ancestry, the Calvinists, with a loftier pride, invaded the invisible world, and from the book of life brought down the record of the noblest enfranchisement, decreed from eternity by the King of kings. By a higher than any earthly lineage they were heaven's noblemen because God's sons and priests, joint heirs with Christ, kings and priests unto God, by a divine anointing and consecration. Put the truth of the sovereignty of God into a man's mind and heart, and you put iron in his blood. The Reformed Faith has rendered a most valuable service in teaching the individual his rights.

In striking contrast with these democratic and republican tendencies which are found to be inherent in the Reformed Faith we find that Arminianism has a very pronounced aristocratic tendency. In the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches the elder votes in Presbytery or Synod or General Assembly on full equality with his pastor; but in Arminian churches the power is largely in the hands of the clergy, and the laymen have very little real authority. Episcopacy stresses rule by the hierarchy. Arminianism and Roman Catholicism (which is practically Arminian) thrive under a monarchy, but there Calvinism finds its life cramped. On the other hand Romanism especially does not thrive in a republic, but there Calvinism finds itself most at home. An aristocratic form of church government tends toward monarchy in civil affairs, while a republican form of church government tends toward democracy in civil affairs. Says McFetridge, "Arminianism is unfavorable to civil liberty, and Calvinism is unfavorable to despotism. The despotic rulers of former days were not slow to observe the correctness of these propositions, and, claiming the divine right of kings, feared Calvinism as republicanism itself."