America vs Religion + Awesome Founding Father Quotes

[Ancalagon]

Where are you getting your definition of Founding Father from, Ancalagon?

My US his/US gov classes... why?

[Frank Hipper]

Maybe I should have stated that as "What is your definition...".

Do you limit it to those involved with drafting the Constitution?

[Metrion Cascade]

I'm basically a complete atheist. Personally, my definition of the supernatural includes that people made it up. I'll upload copies of one or two of my essays on Monday...

[Metrion Cascade]

From "Atheism, Christianity, and Patriotism"

Author: Metrion Cascade

I am an American, and proud to be. I served in my country's military and love this nation as much as the next person. I am also an Atheist. I should not have to lie about what I believe to pledge allegiance to my country, nor am I obligated to change for the majority.
There are several arguments against the 9th Circuit Court's Pledge ruling. One is that we really are a nation under God. Perhaps we are. You certainly could say that, since 74% of Americans are Christian. But that does not give the government the right to assume that we all are. Whether we as individuals are "under God" is a personal decision. Many of us believe differently, or hold no beliefs at all. We are still Americans. This country is certainly not founded on Christianity. The Treaty of Tripoli and the private correspondence of many founding fathers who were Atheists or Deists confirm this. Not to mention a document called the 1st Amendment. Many people seem to think that freedom of religion means the freedom only to be Christian. Rather, it means the freedom to believe as you see fit, or perhaps not at all. Your choice. Not the state's.
Some people argue that the name "God" is a general reference to all religions. This is absurd. "God" (with the capital "G" used in the Pledge) is a name, rather than a word. Even among Christians and Jews, there are those who call him by a different name. So you're already excluding them - unless the government is telling us that we should call him "God" no matter what. Which is not their place. Then, let's look at other Americans. Muslims generally call him Allah. Hinduism has many gods. Buddhism is generally considered to have no god. And, of course, there are many Americans who don't believe in anything that could possibly be called a god. So not only is the name "God" not a generic religious reference, but it excludes those who practice no religion whatsoever. In attempting to use one name ("God") to define all religions and even Atheism, the government is opening a can of worms it should not open, and trying to make a blanket religious assertion it has no right or ability to make. Americans hold nearly 300 million opinions on dozens of religions, and some hold no religion at all. No single religious statement can reflect those many viewpoints.
And yes, the majority of Americans want the Pledge to read "under God." But no majority can speak for both itself and the minority, and the Pledge must speak for all of us. The majority does rule on certain issues, but our constitution has established that this is not the case with respect to race or religion. And there is good reason for this. People have shown that they often only care about the rights of people who are of the same race or faith as themselves. If a person wants to be a racist or religious fundamentalist, they have the right to do so. But they are not entitled to government endorsement.
And if you are Christian, remember that the majority of Romans wanted to murder Jesus Christ for being different. Does might make right?
I can admit that there are bigger problems than "under God" in the Pledge or "In God We Trust" on currency. But the ruling was made, and it was right. If we only attempt to solve the biggest problems and not the smallest, we will make no progress at all. And the upshot of telling Michael Newdow to find something else to do is that his rights don't matter at all and he shouldn't be fighting for them. Yes, they're just words. But in this society where we bring about change with words rather than guns, political force is still force.
Some believers say that removing "under God" from the Pledge is a violation of their rights. But the Pledge belongs to all Americans of all faiths, and nonbelievers too. Nobody is entitled to government endorsement of their religion. Government religious endorsement is not a right, but a special privilege the extension of which to one group inherently violates the rights of every other group. You can still pray in school whenever you want, and bring your Bible. You don't need government permission for either. You can still say "God," and go to any of America's millions of churches. Failure on the state's part to support your religious practices with political force or taxpayer money does not constitute an attack on your faith. Neutrality is not hostility.
Two questions - how can the people leaving death threats on Michael Newdow's answering machine call themselves Christians? And what right has George W. Bush to assert that our rights are derived from his God rather than our humanity? It's not his place to tell us whether to believe or not. Bush, quite simply, has no business in office. Neither did his father, who openly stated that Atheists shouldn't be considered citizens or patriots. Guess he was a mind reader.

I must also take issue with the Atheists and Pagans and Hindus and other non-Christians who aren't concerned with such issues. If you don't fight for your rights, then who's to say you even deserve them? Even in such a society as ours, there is still an undercurrent of anarchy and mob rule (in every venue from the street corner to the floor of Congress) that you cannot escape. The only way to protect your rights in such an environment is to demand them. Few Christians will do it for you. Never tolerate life as a second class citizen, and never tolerate those who would see you in such an existence. Don't pardon their ignorance, or worry about offending them, or assume that it will all be okay. It won't be unless you make it so. Don't think for a second that we are entirely beyond the days of burning heretics at the stake. You and I have seen no shortage of people who would love to see us dead or in prison. And if you don't stand up to them, you might as well be one of them. Inaction on the part of a decent person who knows what must be done is often just as destructive as the actions of a bigot, and just as wrong.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

<snip>

Hmm. Interesting. Food for thought, certainly.

And if you don't stand up to them, you might as well be one of them.

Isn't that a False Dilemma? What about neutrality?

[Metrion Cascade]

Well, that's just it. I am advocating legal neutrality on the issue of religion. The problem is people who want to undo that, and insinuate Christianity into the law.

[Falkenhayn]

As religious as I am, I agree, the Catholic church is an abomination, calling themselves and their institute Christians. They worship him wrongly.

As religious as I am, I agree, the Protestant church is an abomination, calling themselves and their institute christians. By breaking with the Throne of St. Peter, the "Rock upon which I will build my Church" they have damned themselves to hell for eternity. They worship him wrongly.

"Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."
"Judge No, Lest ye be Judged."

Who the fuck said he was talking about the Catholic Church? Over a difference in dogma you would so quickly condemn fully HALF of all christians in the world because you percieve them to be in apostasy? Leave you righteousness to your God please.

[Baron Scarpia]

From "Atheism, Christianity, and Patriotism"

And if you are Christian, remember that the majority of Romans wanted to murder Jesus Christ for being different. Does might make right?

Huh?

A majority of Romans had never even heard of Jesus Christ until at least the 2nd century A.D., well over a hundred years after his (supposed) crucifixion. Pilate, the Roman procurator who condemned Jesus, certainly didn't want to do so, if you believe the story. He was unwilling, but it was the people of Jerusalem, particularly the Pharisees, who were calling for Jesus's death, not the Romans. And few if any outside of Jerusalem and its surrounding area would have taken any notice of these events while they were occuring (though the paucity of contemporary historical records indicates almost nobody took notice of them...). Romans across the Empire wouldn't have cared two whits about some Jew running around Israel claiming to be the "Messiah," which Romans wouldn't have understood, anyway.

[Talon Karrde]

Wow. Impressively put together. I of course disagree with about all of it. When I have more time maybe I'll put together a report like the thread starter

But for starters, when it says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...” this was simply stating that the Congress will not and cannot declare one denomination of Christianity the nations official religion.

[Talon Karrde]

As it was pointed out in this thread http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic.php?t=19537 Only four of those mentioned are actually founding fathers, and two of the quotes are wrong. Even if all six were founding fathers and the quotes weren't bullshit though, are 6 selective quotes out of thousands of pages of writing from 119 people a good basis from which to assume the religious nature of the entire group?

This is an excellent point. Only four mentioned are founding fathers, and I think everyone here recognizes there are many more. Perhaps we can see why our nation began to slip into moral decline if these quotes of the early presidents (i.e. Adams and Jefferson) are true.

[Mitth`raw`nuruodo]

I just thought I'd drop into SLAM to say that I am grateful for these quotes, I just used many of them. Thanks to whoever posted/stickyed this.

[Metrion Cascade]

I'll have to remove the bit about the Romans and Christ, then. Another great site for quotes - www.positiveatheism.org. You can search by name, and they've got source material for every quote (that I've seen).

And as for the separation only protecting sects of Christianity from each other, that's crap. It would be very easy for one sect to simply say that this other sect aren't really Christians. This country wouldn't be worth the paper the Constitution is printed on without a separation between the state and ALL churches.

[Soontir C'boath]

ARe the source books used by this website the only ones or are there more?~Jason

[DPDarkPrimus]

I didn't see this posted before, so I'm submitting it to be added now.

Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Chritianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address.

Found on Positive Atheism.

[Alyrium Denryle]

http://candst.tripod.com/detach.htm

Excerpts from Madison's Detached Memoranda.
This document was discovered in 1946 among the papers of William Cabell Rives, a biographer of Madison. Scholars date these observations in Madison's hand sometime between 1817 and 1832. They offer glimpses of Madison's opinions on several topics and personalities. What follows is that part of the "Memoranda" devoted to the subject of religious liberty. The entire document was published by Elizabeth Fleet in the William and Mary Quarterly of October 1946.
Researched by Jim Allison


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background on Madison's "Detached Memoranda"
"What is significant with respect to the date of its writing is that Madison's "Detached Memoranda' interprets the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and, unlike the Declaration of Independence, does not rest exclusively on the laws of nature or nature's God, on Madison's own "Memorial and Remonstrance, or on Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, although all are reported, confirmed, and defended. It would seem, therefore that the "Detached Memoranda" would be the best source for determining the intended meaning of the "religion" clauses of the First Amendment (and the provision of article VI of the Constitution forbidding religious test for public office) at least by the primary draughtsman of both the Constitution and First Amendment.

The "Detached Memoranda" considers eight issues relating to religion that have reached the Supreme Court in one way or another since the Constitution was adopted: (1) ecclesiastical monopolies; (2) incorporation of churches; (3) grants of public land to churches; (4) tax exemption of religious entities; (5) the Deity in government documents; (6) congressional chaplaincies; (7) military chaplaincies; and (8) religious proclamations by the government."

Source of Information:
Pfeffer, Leo, "Madison's ‘Detached Memoranda': Then and Now." The Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom, Its Evolution and Consequences in American History, Edited by Merrill D. Peterson and Robert C. Vaughan, Cambridge University Press (1988) pp 286, 87.

Excerpt from "Detached Memoranda" by James Madison:
The danger of silent accumulations & encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies have not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S. They have the noble merit of first unshackling the conscience from persecuting laws, and of establishing among religious Seas a legal equality. If some of the States have not embraced this just and this truly Xn principle in its proper latitude, all of them present examples by which the most enlightened States of the old world may be instructed; and there is one State at least, Virginia, where religious liberty is placed on its true foundation and is defined in its full latitude. The general principle is contained in her declaration of rights, prefixed to her Constitution: but it is unfolded and defined, in its precise extent, in the act of the Legislature, usually named the Religious Bill, which passed into a law in the year 1786. Here the separation between the authority of human laws, and the natural rights of Man excepted from the grant on which all political authority is founded, is traced as distinctly as words can admit, and the limits to this authority established with as much solemnity as the forms of legislation can express.

The law has the further advantage of having been the result of a formal appeal to the sense of the Community and a deliberate sanction of a vast majority, comprizing every sect of Christians in the State. This act is a true standard of Religious liberty: its principle the great barrier agst usurpations on the rights of conscience. As long as it is respected & no longer, these will be safe. Every provision for them short of this principle, will be found to leave crevices at least thro' which bigotry may introduce persecution; a monster, that feeding & thriving on its own venom, gradually swells to a size and strength overwhelming all laws divine & human.

Ye States of America, which retain in your Constitutions or Codes, any aberration from the sacred principle of religious liberty, by giving to Caesar what belongs to God, or joining together what God has put asunder, hasten to revise & purify your systems, and make the example of your Country as pure & compleat, in what relates to the freedom of the mind and its allegiance to its maker, as in what belongs to the legitimate objects of political & civil institutions.

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.

The most notable attempt was that in Virga to establish a Gen assessment for the support of ail Xn sects. This was proposed in the year (1784) by P. H. [Patrick Henry] and supported by all his eloquence, aided by the remaining prejudices of the Sect which before the Revolution had been established by law. The progress of the measure was arrested by urging that the respect due to the people required in so extraordinary a case an appeal to their deliberate will. The bill was accordingly printed & published with that view. At the instance of Col: George Nicholas, Col: George Mason & others, the memorial & remonstrance agst it was drawn up, and printed Copies of it circulated thro' the State, to be signed by the people at large. It met with the approbation of the Baptists, the Presbyterians, the Quakers, and the few Roman Catholics, universally; of the Methodists in part; and even of not a few of the Sect formerly established by law. When the Legislature assembled, the number of Copies & signatures prescribed displayed such an overwhelming opposition of the people, that the proposed plan of a genl assessmt was crushed under it: and advantage taken of the crisis to carry thro' the Legisl: the Bill above referred to, establishing religious liberty.

In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst (See letter of J. M. to Mr. Jefferson dated )1 The opponents of the amendment having turned the feeling as well as judgment of the House agst it, by successfully contending that the better proof of reverence for that holy name wd be not to profane it by making it a topic of legisl. discussion, & particularly by making his religion the means of abridging the natural and equal rights of all men, in defiance of his own declaration that his Kingdom was not of this world. This view of the subject was much enforced by the circumstance that it was espoused by some members who were particularly distinguished by their reputed piety and Christian zeal.

But besides the danger of a direct mixture of Religion & civil Government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect. The growing wealth acquired by them never fails to be a source of abuses. A warning on this subject is emphatically given in the example of the various Charitable establishments in G. B. [Great Britain] the management of which has been lately scrutinized. The excessive wealth of ecclesiastical Corporations and the misuse of it in many Countries of Europe has Long been a topic of complaint. In some of them the Church has amassed half perhaps the property of the nation. When the reformation took place, an event promoted if not caused, by chat disordered state of things, how enormous were the treasures of religious societies, and how gross the corruptions engendered by them; so enormous & so gross as to produce in the Cabinets & Councils of the Protestant states a disregard, of all the pleas of the interested party drawn from the sanctions of the law, and the sacredness of property held in religious trust. The history of England during the period of the reformation offers a sufficient illustration for the present purpose.

Are the U. S. duly awake to the tendency of the precedents they are establishing, in the multiplied incorporations of Religious Congregations with the faculty of acquiring & holding property real as well as personal! Do not many of these acts give this faculty, without limit either as to time or as to amount! And must not bodies, perpetual in their existence, and which may be always gaining without ever losing, speedily gain more than is useful, and in time more than is safe! Are there not already examples in the U. S. of ecclesiastical wealth equally beyond its object and the foresight of those who laid the foundation of it! In the U. S. there is a double motive for fixing limits in this case, because wealth may increase not only from additional gifts, but from exorbitant advances in the value of the primitive one. In grants of vacant lands, and of lands in the vicinity of growing towns & Cities the increase of value is often such as if foreseen, would essentially controul the liberality confirming them. The people of the U. S. owe their Independence &. their liberty, to the wisdom of descrying in the minute tax of 3 pence on tea, the magnitude of the evil comprized in the precedent. Let them exert the same wisdom, in watching agst every evil lurking under plausible disguises, and growing up from small beginnings. Obsta principiis.

Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?

The establishment of the chaplainship to Congs is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the chaplains elected [by the majority shut the door of worship agst the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority. To say nothing of other sects, this is the case with that of Roman Catholics & Quakers who have always had members in one or both of the Legislative branches. Could a Catholic clergyman ever hope to be appointed a Chaplain! To say that his religious principles are obnoxious or that his sect is small, is to lift the evil at once and exhibit in its naked deformity the doctrine that religious truth is to be tested by numbers or that the major sects have a tight to govern the minor.

If Religion consist in voluntary acts of individuals, singly, or voluntarily associated, and it be proper that public functionaries, as well as their Constituents shd discharge their religious duties, let them like their Constituents, do so at their own expense. How small a contribution from each member of Cong wd suffice for the purpose! How just wd it be in its principle! How noble in its exemplary sacrifice to the genius of the Constitution; and the divine right of conscience! Why should the expence of a religious worship be allowed for the Legislature, be paid by the public, more than that for the Ex. or Judiciary branch of the Gov

Were the establishment to be tried by its fruits, are not the daily devotions conducted by these legal Ecclesiastics, already degenerating into a scanty attendance, and a tiresome formality!

Rather than let this step beyond the landmarks of power have the effect of a legitimate precedent, it will be better to apply to it the legal aphorism de minimis non curat lex: or to class it cum "maculis quas aut incuria fudit, aut humana parum cavit natura."

Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious in favor of a wrong one. Look thro' the armies & navies of the world, and say whether in the appointment of their ministers of religion, the spiritual interest of the flocks or the temporal interest of the Shepherds, be most in view: whether here, as elsewhere the political care of religion is not a nominal more than a real aid. If the spirit of armies be devout, the spirit out of the armies will never be Less so; and a failure of religious instruction &, exhortation from a voluntary source within or without, will rarely happen: if such be not the spirit of armies, the official services of their Teachers are not likely to produce it. It is more likely to flow from the labours of a spontaneous zeal. The armies of the Puritans had their appointed Chaplains; but without these there would have been no lack of public devotion in that devout age.

The case of navies with insulated crews may be less within the scope of these reflections. But it is not entirely so. The chance of a devout officer, might be of as much worth to religion, as the service of an ordinary chaplain. [were it admitted that religion has a real interest in the latter.] But we are always to keep in mind that it is safer to trust the consequences of a right principle, than reasonings in support of a bad one.

Religious proclamations by the Executive recommending thanksgivings & fasts are shoots from the same root with the legislative acts reviewed.

Altho' recommendations only, they imply a religious agency, making no part of the trust delegated to political rulers.

The objections to them are:

that Govts ought not to interpose in relation to those subject to their authority but in cases where they can do it with effect. An advisory Govt is a contradiction in terms.
The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate.
They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erronious idea of a national religion. The idea just as it related to the Jewish nation under a theocracy, having been improperly adopted by so many nations which have embraced Xnity, is too apt to lurk in the bosoms even of Americans, who in general are aware of the distinction between religious & political societies. The idea also of a union of all to form one nation under one Govt in acts of devotion to the God of all is an imposing idea. But reason and the principles of the Xn religion require that all the individuals composing a nation even of the same precise creed & wished to unite in a universal act of religion at the same time, the union ought to be effected thro' the intervention of their religious not of their political representatives. In a nation composed of various sects, some alienated widely from others, and where no agreement could take place thro' the former, the interposition of the latter is doubly wrong:
The tendency of the practice, to narrow the recommendation to the standard of the predominant sect. The Ist proclamation of Genl Washington dated Jany 1. 1795 recommending a day of thanksgiving, embraced all who believed in a supreme ruler of the Universe." That of Mr. Adams called for a Xn worship. Many private letters reproached the Proclamations issued by J. M. for using general terms, used in that of Presit W--n; and some of them for not inserting particulars according with the faith of certain Xn sects. The practice if not strictly guarded naturally terminates in a conformity to the creed of the majority and a single sect, if amounting to a majority.
The last & not the least objection is the liability of the practice to a subserviency to political views; to the scandal of religion, as well as the increase of party animosities. Candid or incautious politicians will not always disown such views. In truth it is difficult to frame such a religious Proclamation generally suggested by a political State of things, without referring to them in terms having some bearing on party questions. The Proclamation of Pres: W. which was issued just after the suppression of the Insurrection in Penna and at a time when the public mind was divided on several topics, was so construed by many. Of this the Secretary of State himself, E. Randolph seems to have had an anticipation.
The original draught of that Instrument filed in the Dept. of State in the hand writing of Mr Hamilton the Secretary of the Treasury. It appears that several slight alterations only had been made at the suggestion of the Secretary of State; and in a marginal note in his hand, it is remarked that "In short this proclamation ought to savour as much as possible of religion, & not too much of having a political object." In a subjoined note in the hand of Mr. Hamilton, this remark is answered by the counter-remark that "A proclamation of a Government which is a national act, naturally embraces objects which are political" so naturally, is the idea of policy associated with religion, whatever be the mode or the occasion, when a function of the latter is assumed by those in power.

During the administration of Mr Jefferson no religious proclamation was issued. It being understood that his successor was disinclined to such interpositions of the Executive and by some supposed moreover that they might originate with more propriety with the Legislative Body, a resolution was passed requesting him to issue a proclamation.

It was thought not proper to refuse a compliance altogether; but a form & language were employed, which were meant to deaden as much as possible any claim of political right to enjoin religious observances by resting these expressly on the voluntary compliance of individuals, and even by limiting the recommendation to such as wished simultaneous as well as voluntary performance of a religious act on the occasion.

[charben]

There's tons of really great ammunition in a book called 2000 Years of Disbelief.

It's published by Prometheus Press and it's a compilation of quotes and writings of skeptics, doubters, atheists, scientists, philosophers and others from ancient Greece to modern times. I can't remember the editor of the book, but I think it's still in print. Check the Prometheus Books website (don't have the URL with me, sorry). Worth every penny.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Religion and Faith are usually two quite different things. I would go as far as to say (as someone who believes in God) that religion is, on the whole, a great perpetrator of evil (obviously exceptions exist).

Be you Athiest, Thiest or just straight down the middle Agnostic, I think any rational being must (if only theoretically) understand that to place the words, meanings and intentions of the Supreme Being in the hands of a collective bureaucracy is folly in the extreme, and generally neither serves the people, nor even the Faith it claims to enforce.

It would be sad for a lot of people to read all those quotes and assume they all talk of the foolishness of belief, or the tyranny of Faith.

[Mopeyennuui]

Now is a bad time to point out that the Puritans are the predecessors to the modern Christian Right.

And if the Ourtains were for a secular theocracy, then go figure, right?

[Haruko]

I skimmed through the posts, and I would feel silly if someone had already pointed out the following:

...if there were no religion in it.’”

This is a portion of a quotation I wish to address. If I'm correct, it's misleading. In the letter, the person writing it meant to imply organized religion.

I attained this arguement from the following site: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/buckner_ncn.html

[Haruko]

From "Atheism, Christianity, and Patriotism"

And if you are Christian, remember that the majority of Romans wanted to murder Jesus Christ for being different. Does might make right?

Huh?

A majority of Romans had never even heard of Jesus Christ until at least the 2nd century A.D., well over a hundred years after his (supposed) crucifixion. Pilate, the Roman procurator who condemned Jesus, certainly didn't want to do so, if you believe the story. He was unwilling, but it was the people of Jerusalem, particularly the Pharisees, who were calling for Jesus's death, not the Romans. And few if any outside of Jerusalem and its surrounding area would have taken any notice of these events while they were occuring (though the paucity of contemporary historical records indicates almost nobody took notice of them...). Romans across the Empire wouldn't have cared two whits about some Jew running around Israel claiming to be the "Messiah," which Romans wouldn't have understood, anyway.

By this, I am reminded of an article by Paul Tobin called The Roman Persecution of the Early Christians. Interesting read that I recommend.

[wolveraptor]

Just have to add this: Why do people even debate whether or not the Founding Fathers wanted the US to be a theocracy or not? The fact is, right now, it ISN'T a theocracy, and if you try to make it one, I'll resist with all my power as a citizen.

[hypernova]

Even with these quotes i dont see any argument? some founding fathers were christians, some weren't, the christians put the morals they had into it, and the non-christians put their morals into it and boom you got a pretty good constitution going.

some were and some weren't, no we're not a theocracy, but yes we do have many christian ideals in the goverment. I also mean ideals in the ways of laws, some laws we have today probably wouldnt exist unless some of our founding fathers were christians.

the Christian founding fathers were also the ones behind the act to keep religion out of goverment, this due to their experience in/of England.

and to ask the athiest i think you have to agree that christianity (if you believe its all lies) is the best set of lies and cons on the face of the earth. all other religions, wouldnt u agree are a bit weak compared.

[Edi]

Even with these quotes i dont see any argument? some founding fathers were christians, some weren't, the christians put the morals they had into it, and the non-christians put their morals into it and boom you got a pretty good constitution going.

I defy you to find any specifically Christian morality in the US constitution that is not universally applicable.

some were and some weren't, no we're not a theocracy, but yes we do have many christian ideals in the goverment. I also mean ideals in the ways of laws, some laws we have today probably wouldnt exist unless some of our founding fathers were christians.

Quite, and most of those laws that wouldn't exist would be the pointless repressively moralistic religious bullshit laws that are still on the books in a lot of places.

the Christian founding fathers were also the ones behind the act to keep religion out of goverment, this due to their experience in/of England.

Which is all the more reason to prevent the current crop of fucking theocractic morons from destroying that separationof church and state, which is the current #1 fundie agenda.

and to ask the athiest i think you have to agree that christianity (if you believe its all lies) is the best set of lies and cons on the face of the earth. all other religions, wouldnt u agree are a bit weak compared.

Not really. There are some lot more attractive alternative sets of lies, like the reincarnation beliefs in some oriental religions.

And learn to fucking spell, you illiterate moron. You already know how to use paragraphs, which means I only have a splitting headache after reading your post instead of a fullblown dazzle migraine attack. Fucking pathetic, that I write better English than you do when it's my second language...

Edi

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Even with these quotes i dont see any argument? some founding fathers were christians, some weren't, the christians put the morals they had into it, and the non-christians put their morals into it and boom you got a pretty good constitution going.

some were and some weren't, no we're not a theocracy, but yes we do have many christian ideals in the goverment. I also mean ideals in the ways of laws, some laws we have today probably wouldnt exist unless some of our founding fathers were christians.

the Christian founding fathers were also the ones behind the act to keep religion out of goverment, this due to their experience in/of England.

and to ask the athiest i think you have to agree that christianity (if you believe its all lies) is the best set of lies and cons on the face of the earth. all other religions, wouldnt u agree are a bit weak compared.

Hi new person. I am pleased to announce that I've decided to watch you carefully based upon the following behaviors:

1) Your laughable assertion that we have many purely Christian morals and ideals in the government. Most major religions, as well as classical philosophy hold a common set of morals and values. Our government is based more on a combination of English Common Law, classical views of how a republic is run, and the way the Iroquois League ran their government.

2) Your laughable assertion that it was the Christians who erected the Seperation Clause. Jefferson was a deist, as were the early Presidents.

3) Your implication that Christianity is superior to other religions, in spite of your transparent attempt to cover it up.

4) Your pointless, badly-written contribution to the "Historicity of Jesus" thread in SLAM, where you demonstrate a level of knowledge consistent with someone whose idea of ancient history is Sunday school.

[applejack]

Religion and Faith are usually two quite different things. I would go as far as to say (as someone who believes in God) that religion is, on the whole, a great perpetrator of evil (obviously exceptions exist).

Be you Athiest, Thiest or just straight down the middle Agnostic, I think any rational being must (if only theoretically) understand that to place the words, meanings and intentions of the Supreme Being in the hands of a collective bureaucracy is folly in the extreme, and generally neither serves the people, nor even the Faith it claims to enforce.

It would be sad for a lot of people to read all those quotes and assume they all talk of the foolishness of belief, or the tyranny of Faith.

But if quotes like Thomas Jefferson's remark about Christianity being a superstition is any indication, some of the Founding Fathers were hostile to Faith as well. The trend of the day amongst many of the Founding Fathers it seems was using Reason to understand God.