The Myth of the "Christian Nation" Divides Us
While our politicians get on with the work of plundering our wealth, planning our lives, and preparing their next war of aggression, they remain comfortably insulated from criticism of any of these substantive actions because they have successfully distracted average Americans with issues that should not involve government at all. There is none more divisive than religion.
The left reads into the First Amendment of the Constitution an active role for government in prohibiting the acknowledgment of religion or God in any public setting. The right reads into our Declaration of Independence a requirement of belief not only in God, but in the Christian God, in order for one to claim the unalienable rights that are “endowed by our Creator.” Neither position is correct.
If there was one thing that our founders made clear, it was their belief that each person’s inner life belonged wholly to him or her. They referred to this as the “right of conscience,” and they revered it above all other rights. They believed that each human being had the right to answer for himself the questions of whether there is a God and what the nature and will of God might be. They believed that reason was the means for man to do so. Regardless of the conclusions that any individual might reach, he was still entitled to all of the same unalienable rights. This is the true meaning of “religious freedom.”
Among the growing minority that has recognized our loss of liberty and the importance of regaining it, there are many who mistakenly say that the United States was “founded as a Christian nation,” and that only returning to Christian principles will solve our problems. Others may not require that one believe in Christ, but do insist that belief in God is necessary in order to give authority to the law of nature and the natural rights. These positions not only alienate atheists, who are admittedly a small minority, but also a large contingency of Christians and other believers in God who do not want government – which is an institution of force – to play any role in their inner lives. This is an unnecessary division among people who might otherwise unite to fight for their liberty.
It is long past time to answer some fundamental questions about our history once and for all. Did the founders of the United States believe in God? Was the United States founded as a “Christian nation?” Was the Constitution based upon Christian or Judeo-Christian laws as found in their scriptures? Did the founders believe that belief in God was necessary to claim the unalienable rights?
The answer to the first question is a resounding “yes.” Even Jefferson, arguably the most “liberal” of the founding fathers, believed in a supreme being, despite the accusations of atheism made against him by political rivals. He also revered Christianity as the greatest religion in human history, as did his “conservative” counterpart, John Adams. However, neither Adams nor Jefferson believed that Jesus Christ was the son of God or even a divine being. Most people are familiar with Jefferson’s bible, which he cut apart and reorganized to eliminate all of the miracles. However, John Adams, a Unitarian, was even more ambivalent about the idea that Jesus Christ was God. In a letter to Jefferson, he wrote,
“They all believe that great Principle which has produced this boundless universe, Newton’s universe and Hershell’s universe, came down to this little ball, to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.”[1]
Neither Adams, Jefferson, Washington, nor Franklin believed that Jesus was literally the son of God or otherwise a divine being in any way. Rather, they admired most of the moral principles of Christianity, although not all of them. For instance, they disagreed with Jesus’ doctrine to “turn the other cheek.” They believed that self defense of one’s life, liberty, and property was not only a right, but a duty. However, it was the Christian principles of love and non-aggression that are espoused in virtually all religions that inspired John Adams to say, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[2] This will become even more apparent shortly.
In any case, the answer to the first question is “yes.” Most of the founders believed in God. They revered the moral teachings of Christianity, although most of the philosophical leaders among them did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
Our second question is, “Was the United States founded as a Christian nation?” In 1796, the United States signed a treaty with Tripoli, promising a monetary gift in return for a cessation of hostilities. That treaty was unanimously ratified by the senate and signed by President John Adams. Among its articles resides the answer to our second question.
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."[3] [emphasis added]
Thomas Jefferson confirmed this statement in his autobiography when commenting on a Virginia bill to establish religious freedom.
“Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.”[4]
Next, there is the question of the philosophical basis for the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and original system of laws of the United States. According to Thomas Jefferson, that philosophical basis was most directly the enlightenment philosophers, specifically John Locke and Algernon Sydney. In 1825, Jefferson actually got a resolution passed by the Board of the University of Virginia to make this point clear.
"Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Board that as to the general principles of liberty and the rights of man, in nature and in society, the doctrines of Locke, in his 'Essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government,' and of Sidney in his 'Discourses on Government,' may be considered as those generally approved by our fellow citizens of this, and the United States."[5]
Despite this and other unqualified statements by the founders regarding the philosophical basis for our founding principles, there are many that claim that the founders drew their philosophy from Judeo-Christian scriptures or teachings. While there is much common ground between these teachings and the enlightenment philosophers, the founders were clear that where scripture or dogma conflicted with the enlightenment philosophy of liberty, it was the non-aggression philosophy of liberty that prevailed. Regarding the scriptures, Jefferson wrote,
The whole history of these books is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.[6]
The founder’s skepticism about man’s knowledge of the will of God was not confined to the scriptures themselves. John Adams makes clear that at least he recognized that human beings had no ability to definitively determine the will of God.
“That there is an active principle of power in the universe, is apparent; but in what substance that active principle resides, is past our investigation. The faculties of our understanding are not adequate to penetrate the universe.”[7]
Finally, there is the most important question. Did the founders assert that belief in God was necessary to claim the unalienable rights? As with the other questions, they answered this one quite unambiguously. In a letter to Peter Carr, Thomas Jefferson advised his young friend,
“Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear.”[8]
“Do not be frightened from this enquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no god, you will find incitements to virtue in the comforts & pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a god, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, & that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a god, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. In fine, I repeat that you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, & neither believe nor reject anything because any other persons, or description of persons have rejected or believed it.” Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable not for the rightness but uprightness of the decision.”[9] [emphasis added]
There are those who argue that without God, there is no authority to base the natural rights upon. This was not the assertion of our founders and it directly contradicts our Declaration of Independence, which reads,
“We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” [emphasis added]
While the founders believe that our rights came from our Creator (whomever or whatever the Creator might be), they explicitly said that these truths are self evident. They are truths that can be observed directly. This is directly inspired by Locke’s empiricism. While he, too, believed in God, he based his philosophy only upon what he could directly observe in nature or reasonably conclude from those observations. Therefore, his philosophy recognized the existence of God but did not depend upon it for its validity.
Consider a useful analogy. If a priest and an atheist were both to consider a rock lying upon the ground, both would agree that the rock exists. They could see it, touch it, and hear its sound if they picked it up and then dropped it from their hand. The priest would say that the rock was created by God. The atheist would explain its existence with scientific theories. They may disagree vehemently on this point, but no third party would have to decide who is correct. All can see that the rock exists, for its existence is self evident. The same is true of our natural rights. Our Declaration of Independence says so explicitly.
The only authority that the founders recognized as the basis for our laws was the non-aggression principle, which they recognized as the fundamental law of nature. The beauty of this idea is that it transcends religion and thus welcomes members of all religions, as well as those with no religious beliefs at all. The non-aggression principle allows each individual to use his reason to answer the most important philosophical questions of life for himself, without being forced to assent to any beliefs that he does not hold. It allows people to believe in God voluntarily, or to not believe, as their reason dictates. The only restriction upon them is that they commit no aggression against anyone else, regardless of their beliefs. Jefferson expressed this beautifully when he wrote,
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.[10]
If all of America’s founding principles, including freedom of religion, could be summed up in two sentences, no better than these could be found anywhere. If we could agree to live by this one statement alone, the number of people no longer divided along partisan lines would be staggering. Our politicians are wasting trillions of our dollars and assuming un-delegated powers over us that apply to believers and non-believers alike. We must grant each other the ability to exercise the right of conscience freely within the boundary of non-aggression. Only then will we see clearly where the true source of our crisis lies – in a government whose every act contradicts the reason for its existence and perpetuates a state of war with its people. We must unite together to eliminate this earthly threat in order to resume the pursuit of our happiness, both in this world and the next.
[1] Adams, John Letter to Thomas Jefferson January 22, 1825 from The Works of John Adams Second President of the United States Vol. X Charles C. Little and James Brown Boston, MA 1851Pg. 415
[2] Adams, John To the Officers of the First Brigade of the Third Division of the Militia of Massachussetts 11 October 1798 from The Works of John Adams Second President of the United States Vol. IX Charles C. Little and James Brown Boston, MA 1851Pg. 229
[3] Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary June 17, 1797 from The Avalon Project Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Library http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp. There has been some debate on whether the language in Article 11 was translated correctly from the original Arabic in which the treaty was written. However, this is irrelevant. It was the English translation containing these exact words that the Senate reviewed and ratified, making the question of translation irrelevant on this point.
[4] Jefferson, Thomas Autobiography from Jefferson Writings edited by Merrill D. Peterson, Literary Classics of the United States, New York, NY 1984 pg. 40
[5] Thomas Jefferson, Writings, ed. Merrill Peterson (New York, N.Y.: Library of America, 1984), p. 479
[6] Jefferson, Thomas from The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 14 edited by Albert Ellery Bergh and Andrew A. Lipscomb The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association 1904 pgs. 71-2
[7] Adams, John Letter to Thomas Jefferson January 22, 1825 from The Works of John Adams Second President of the United States Vol. X Charles C. Little and James Brown Boston, MA 1851Pg. 414
[8] Jefferson, Thomas Letter to Peter Carr August 10, 1787 from Jefferson Writings edited by Merrill D. Peterson, Literary Classics of the United States, New York, NY 1984 pg. 902
[9] Jefferson, Thomas Letter to Peter Carr August 10, 1787 from Jefferson Writings edited by Merrill D. Peterson, Literary Classics of the United States, New York, NY 1984 pg. 903-4
[10] Jefferson, Thomas Notes on Virginia from Jefferson Writings edited by Merrill D. Peterson, Literary Classics of the United States, New York, NY 1984 pg. 285
© Thomas Mullen 2009
- Tom Mullen's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 2564 reads
****
مسجات رومانسيه جديده
مسجات رومانسيه 2010
مسجات رومانسيه جديده
مسجات غرام
مسجات حب
مسجات عشق
مسجات عشق
تثبيت ماسنجر 8,5 دون طلب تحديث
سكربت كشف دون اتصال للماسنجر
برنامج كشف الحظر في ماسنجر ياهو
برنامج ماسنجر هوتميل على الموبايل والجوال
صور زوجة امير الحقيقيه
قصائد عبدالرحمن الشمري
قصايد عبدالرحمن الشمري
الشاعر عبدالرحمن الشمري
قصايد عبدالكريم الجباري
قصائد عبدالكريم الجباري
الشاعر عبدالكريم الجباري
قصايد خلف المشعان
قصائد خلف المشعان
الشاعر خلف المشعان
قصايد مطلق النومسي
قصائد مطلق النومسي
الشاعر مطلق النومسي
قصايد محمد بن الذيب
قصائد محمد بن الذيب
الشاعر محمد بن الذيب
قصايد محمد بن فطيس
قصائد محمد بن فطيس
الشاعر محمد بن فطيس
قصايد محمد مريبد العازمي
قصائد محمد مريبد العازمي
الشاعر محمد مريبد العازمي
قصايد مدغم ابو شيبه
قصائد مدغم ابو شيبه
الشاعر مدغم ابو شيبه
قصايد صوتيه
منتديات
مقاطع فيديو
العاب فلاشيه
العاب بنات
دليل مواقع
توبيكات
All you people commenting on here that you think this is such a "great article"... you read this 1777 Thanksgiving proclamation put out by Congress... this was APPROVED BY CONGRESS, I repeat for emphasis... read it carefully, and then tell me if there is a "MYTH" of a Christian Nation. Tom's lying, and he will have to face judgment by God, just as all the rest of us, for all the lies we tell.
Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther blessings as they stand in need of; and it having pleased him in his abundant mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of his common providence, but also smile upon us in the prosecution of a just and necessary war, for the defense and establishment of our unalienable rights and liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a measure to prosper the means used for the support of our troops and to crown our arms with most signal success:
It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart Thursday, the 18th day of December next, for solemn thanksgiving and praise; that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that together with their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States the greatest of all blessings, independence and peace; that it may please him to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people and the labor of the husbandman, that our land may yield its increase; to take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under his nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
And it is further recommended, that servile labor, and such recreation as, though at other times innocent, may be unbecoming the purpose of this appointment, be omitted on so solemn an occasion.
I've got access to thousands of these same kind of documents issued by our government leaders and founding fathers... what would you like to read?
You all need to learn the real history of the migration of the early European Protestants to this country and WHY they came.
_______________________________________________________
CreationLiberty.org
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau
Tom, thank you for your excellent article – extremely provocative and well reasoned. I regret that I can not feel the same for the some of the comments posted thus far!
Predictably, your piece obviously struck some raw nerves and the subsequent dogma and condescending personal attacks did much to illustrate your premise… that in fact, the myth of a “Christian Nation” does divide us!
The existence of this myth is most unfortunate and potentially damaging to our common interests as Americans when attempting to restore our Republic that the framers envisioned.
One could very easily feel the frustration, indignation and petty vindictiveness put forth from several of your detractors – I am left pondering if that was proper Christian behavior on their part –wink…wink? But, I will refrain from further judgments.
I am a professing Christian. Now- “thud” – please consider my personal belief system properly checked – at the door of “reason”, on standby and completely intact. Be assured that I will un-check it later when I go home and find the need for personal communion and prayer.
The practice of not attempting to force others to conform to my personal cosmology yields “tolerance” toward the opinions of others – their intimate beliefs’ and creeds’ – their prayers’, hopes’, motivations’ and desires’ – to do so does not threaten, alter or diminish my personal intimate beliefs. For me “tolerance” is an essential element of Christian doctrine and practice.
When exercising “tolerance” – we more fully understand why others value their life, liberty and happiness and I am pleased when I know they have achieved some measure of it even if those pursuits differ greatly from my own and conflict with my belief system.
I submit that we can not effectively understand the “Age of Reason” – the libertarian philosophical mindset of the enlightenment, without conditionally shifting our personal cosmological belief systems to the back burner when in public discourse – especially when in a forum of discussion dedicated for the purpose of attempting to arrive at avenues and means to proliferate individual liberty for benefit of ourselves and our Republic. Christian values are not conditional for the exercising of decent civilities and principles.
Dogmatically assuming that America is a “Christian Nation” does potentially disenfranchises many of our fellow countryman and is contrary to ‘reason’. To NOT allow ourselves the means (tolerance) to understand and embrace the mindset of the “framers” and generate the self-discipline required in so doing - is to hinder our abilities and potentially distort and / or corrupt the very essence of the thing we wish to proliferate – that being “liberty” – to do so is to snuff out our own cherished candle light and then vainly grope in the darkness lamenting our circumstance.
Liberty is either evident and true or it is a sham and a lie. There is no halfway with liberty! You can not have it both ways! Without true liberty we have no guardian to assure us freedom to practice our own intimate cosmologies and share and interact them with our families.
I agree with Tom’s premise that assumptions of an underlining “Judeo/Christian” philosophical foundation as the basis for this nation’s founding is not consistent with the historical facts, nor with enlightenment principles and protocols as were deemed in their time as necessary prerequisites for allowing the development of the framework required for advancing and maintaining individual liberty and justice which is the blood and marrow of our Republic.
Quite simply, to structure the Republic as a “Christian Nation” would not have worked then and it will not work for us attempt to do so now.
Realistically, free thinking can not prevail within any collective body with ONE pervasive monolithic religious dogma as a foundational substructure. Especially when that very belief systems has defined fundamental concepts of: sin; salvation and damnation. I submit that one can choose to be a Christian, but one can not force this belief system on others. You can not “make” Christians!
We deceive ourselves if we pretend to understand liberty without judicially exercising tolerance for any and all cosmological belief systems. The framers were products of their time. They were the epitome of libertarianism with extreme levels of tolerance for the diversity of thought and practice.
The constitution must be valued for more than a pretext to establish the institutional foundation for an evolution toward an American Theocracy. The defined separation of our institutions and any practicing religious belief systems are essential toward culturing active liberty and the understanding and preservation of natural rights.
I can not reasonably see how it can work by any other means in a representative republic?
In summary, a citizenry exercising tolerance and the ability to suspend judgment toward their fellow creatures in matters of intense personal faith and religious practice are essential elements for liberty to take root and flourish – and I submit these factors are at the very foundation of our Republic, and thus, to assume that this was, and is now, a “Christian Nation”, is contrary to the essence of our Republic and the intent of the framers.
To attempt to force the issue is nothing better than worst form of tyranny bordering on fanaticism and displays an unwholesome attempt at hegemony to be avoided at all cost.
many of the founders Free Mason's ---- a group at odds with the authority of the Roman Church..
All the speculation about their personal beliefs seems beside the point anyway --- the document they wrote is clear and simple.
Tom's point seems to be that the gov't should be bound by the constitution because that was the law of the land
Chris's question is on what basis do you justify your beliefs and condemn the beliefs and actions of the NWO.
Personally I find Chris's question relevant because the Constitution has been practically swept aside to make way for the rules and regulations of the NWO. People objecting to this new authority on the grounds that it's "unconstitutional" are treated with indifference. Lawmakers, supreme court justices, presidents, all say that it is a document open to interpretation and one that must change with the times. People in this camp site technology, population, the environment, as new challenges that the founders never considered.
In your essay, you acknowledge that the founders base their concepts of natural rights on a supra-human "creator". That is what elevates their statements above philosophy - which is based on the thoughts of men. They don't claim that men should have the enumerated rights because that is what is most beneficial, practical, rational or logical. They claim that man are endowed with these rights by a creator. In other words these rights are discovered by men, not created by them.
That said, religion has been used as a wedge issue by the ruling powers to keep people divided and bickering for centuries.
Anyhow, what about the founders owning slaves? Doesn't this mean that the constitution only applies to certain people? I've never gotten a satisfactory answer about that.
I'm sure certain groups higher up the NWO pyramid are governed by various constitutions that don't apply to the slaves below
Nicely said Adam. I haven't gotten online much in the past couple weeks, in the process of building my home.
I have to go a step further, and say that the arguments they're using (you listed them very accurately), technology, population, and environment, are all arguments based on evolutionary philosophy, used by the NWO.
1) Government does not rule technology. It rules people. Technology changes. People do not. Why? Because the design specs for technology change because we change the design. God designed man. That's why man does not change... the designer has not change the original specs. We just keep screwing it up and not doing what we're designed to do.
2) The world is not over crowded. If the population is high where you live, and you want to change it... then move. Try driving through the mid west sometime (I lived in Oklahoma for two years, I know), and then tell me if we're over populated.
3) The government does not rule the environment. It rules people. There's a lot of argumentation to be made here, but there is no environmental crisis. There is no global warming catastrophe. We had a meteorologist come through town recently and give a presentation about the fake global warming junk. He showed the contradictions from Al Gore's own charts that Gore uses in his own presentations.
The bottom line is this from the atheist/evolutionist viewpoint: The earth is naturally messed up, and man is the only savior for man. (Which actually is an excellent argument for the New World Order.)
The bottom line is this from the Christian/creationist viewpoint: Man has wrecked the earth, and man needs to work as stewards of the earth as the Bible says, until the true Savior, Christ, returns to be King.
As for the founders owning slaves, I have heard that a small few did, but I've never gotten to read who they were. If some did, you have to define slave. There are differences slaves... hired slaves and indentured slaves... and then there are the plantation owner slaves that most people are used to hearing about. The latter is what is wrong. So first we need to define what type of slave you're referring to, then find out what actually happened, then determine the lines of reasoning.
But the plantation slaves... people were desperately looking for a justification for slavery at that time. And Darwin's theory of evolution matched it perfectly. (See The New World Order's Justification for more details; http://www.breakthematrix.com/content/The-New-World-Orders-Justification)
CreationLiberty.org
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau
Excellent job!
Of course all the Christian apologists will come out in force and try to discredit everything said. The religious cherry pickers will have a field day with this, but religious fanatics will never go away.
I hopped on this website for a moment to check some information in one of my articles, and I saw this title on the "Featured Columns." I took a look at it, and I wonder why I am still surprised when I see this kind of smut put into a 'featured column' on this website. It shouldn't surprise me that people would still post these things without getting all the fact first, but I guess I still get that way sometimes.
Few things to consider before reading this:
1) I'm not gonna' have enough time to respond to much of this. I'm just gonna' pick out some key parts and write some on them.
2) Tom Mullins is probably very intelligent and hard-working, but hard work and intellect have nothing to do with truth.
3) What drives me to write this is not because Tom believes this junk, nor that I'm reading it. I'm driven to write this because it upsets me that people who choose to remain ignorant of the facts try to write this crap so to drag others down the same road with them, to think that if everyone else believes like they do, they get a majority opinion, and it'll become truth by popular vote. That's just dumb. Majority opinion will not determine truth either.
While our politicians get on with the work of plundering our wealth, planning our lives, and preparing their next war of aggression, they remain comfortably insulated from criticism of any of these substantive actions because they have successfully distracted average Americans with issues that should not involve government at all. There is none more divisive than religion.
No sir, the truth is what's divisive. Show me a contradiction to that, I'd like to see it. That's why the Bible calls it the "sword of truth"... not the shield. Take for example, Creationism vs Evolutionism. Some people try to combine the two, but they are complete polar opposites, and somebody's wrong.
The truth is kinda' like old Highlander show... there can be only one. The problem is trying to find the division between people that are looking for the truth, from the people that like not knowing it for personal reasons.
The left reads into the First Amendment of the Constitution an active role for government in prohibiting the acknowledgment of religion or God in any public setting. The right reads into our Declaration of Independence a requirement of belief not only in God, but in the Christian God, in order for one to claim the unalienable rights that are “endowed by our Creator.” Neither position is correct.
Be careful here folks. I'm not trying to 'read into this' too much... but look at what he's done: Neither the left, nor the right, in most settings, say either of these things. I want you guys to look carefully at the first few paragraphs of this article, and he's mostly stating his opinion, which is fine, but often times writes it out as it is truth, which is not fine. Even the leftist evolutionary atheists I've met don't have any problem with people acknowledging religion and/or God in any public setting. They personally don't want to do that, but most don't read into the First Amendment and go around preaching it.
And as such, the rightist creationist Christian does not say you have to believe in a Christian God for one to claim unalienable rights. Claim it all you want, go for it, I don't care. But Tom Mullens, as well as many others on this website have avoided purposefully the question I have been asking for the past year: "Assuming there is no God, on what authority do you justify that your cause is right and the NWO's cause is wrong?" You can almost forget everything else in the rest of Tom's article here because that question of foundation has not yet been determined... at least in humanistic/atheist circles, but yet they still CLAIM a lot... just without foundation.
If there was one thing that our founders made clear, it was their belief that each person’s inner life belonged wholly to him or her. They referred to this as the “right of conscience,” and they revered it above all other rights.
I'd certainly like to see the references of all the founding signers referencing their believes in the "right of conscience." It's possible there is such a thing, and I wouldn't have any problem with that, but I've grown very skeptical of Tom Mullen's writings because it often happens, and you'll all see examples of that shortly.
They believed that each human being had the right to answer for himself the questions of whether there is a God and what the nature and will of God might be. They believed that reason was the means for man to do so. Regardless of the conclusions that any individual might reach, he was still entitled to all of the same unalienable rights. This is the true meaning of “religious freedom.”
That's correct... free to believe, not to believe, worship, and not to worship at each person's discretion. Though it is the Christian God of the Bible that allows these free unalienable rights as a gift, by the Word of God, man is allowed to reject Him and make whatever choices he/she wants. But rejecting the Creator and trying to achieve liberty is a complete oxy-moron. (See Revealing Liberty: A Defining Line in the Sand for more details -- http://www.breakthematrix.com/content/Revealing-Liberty-A-Defining-Line-...) The French have tried this before. Read about the French Revolutions in the early 1800s... or read De Tocqueville's Democracy in America and Frederick Bastiat's The Law. But there again... only read that material if you're looking for the truth. If you don't want the truth and are happy with what you think about Liberty, then by all means, remain ignorant, but don't walk around hiding under a cloak labeled liberty:
"For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God." -1 Peter 2:15-16
Among the growing minority that has recognized our loss of liberty and the importance of regaining it, there are many who mistakenly say that the United States was “founded as a Christian nation,” and that only returning to Christian principles will solve our problems.
Mistakenly say? Folks, if you want a real education, I'd start out by going to wallbuilders.com. If you REALLY want to find out how much information not only Tom's ignoring, but purposefully not researching, watch David Barton's video called: The Spiritual Heritage of the United States Capitol. That'll get your taste buds wet for just a little piece of mounting evidence of this country's Christian heritage. I wish I had time to write out more for you all, but I don't.
But let me at least pose this question to you: Why would a Christian heritage in the Bible being the foundation of our nation be such a hard thing for people to accept? Let me tell you why -- People like their wicked lifestyles, and they don't want God telling them what to do. That's the problem, right there. They don't want God telling them though shalt not lie, and thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not commit adultery. This nation was start on good moral principle, and that is not possibly achieved outside of a solid foundational religious philosophy of God.
Others may not require that one believe in Christ, but do insist that belief in God is necessary in order to give authority to the law of nature and the natural rights. These positions not only alienate atheists,
*gasps* Aww... did the atheists get left out? Then that would make sense why the Christians are fought so viciously by the NWO.
who are admittedly a small minority, but also a large contingency of Christians and other believers in God who do not want government – which is an institution of force – to play any role in their inner lives. This is an unnecessary division among people who might otherwise unite to fight for their liberty.
That's why government is not founded on Christianity. This country certainly is, but the government itself is not. They're just rejecting Christianity all-together, and want it to play no part in anything they see, hear, or do. Again, it's the rejection of God telling them what to do because they like their wicked lifestyles.
It is long past time to answer some fundamental questions about our history once and for all. Did the founders of the United States believe in God?
Yes.
Was the United States founded as a “Christian nation?”
Yes.
Was the Constitution based upon Christian or Judeo-Christian laws as found in their scriptures?
As I'm so far aware, yes. I'm still doing more research on that one, but as I read through Leviticus, it's amazing the similarities between what God gave the Hebrews, and our Constitution. The difference being the teachings of Jesus Christ, God's Son, involved. But on about every subject, from property rights, to punishment of laws, and how judges are selected... it seems to match up. I really wish I had more time to go over the specifics on this. I may write an article on that in the future.
Did the founders believe that belief in God was necessary to claim the unalienable rights?
No. You can claim whatever you want. But unalienable rights come from God.
The answer to the first question is a resounding “yes.” Even Jefferson, arguably the most “liberal” of the founding fathers, believed in a supreme being, despite the accusations of atheism made against him by political rivals. He also revered Christianity as the greatest religion in human history, as did his “conservative” counterpart, John Adams.
You can put 'liberal' and 'conservative' definitions on them, but Tom needs to define those words first, then tell us what he means by that.
However, neither Adams nor Jefferson believed that Jesus Christ was the son of God or even a divine being.
Again, cite your reference. If you're just gonna' make a statement like that, you need to back it up. If you don't, you're just brainwashing people, which makes you no different from the NWO.
Most people are familiar with Jefferson’s bible, which he cut apart and reorganized to eliminate all of the miracles.
The one that was attributed to him, yes, it cut out all the miracles. I have looked, and I've spoken with others that have looked, and no one's been able to find any references to that being Jefferson's bible. Please provide that information.
However, John Adams, a Unitarian, was even more ambivalent about the idea that Jesus Christ was God.
I don't know if Tom Mullens is purposefully lying about this, or if he's just ignorant. I'm going to assume it's the latter, because ignorance can be fixed. Lying is stupid, and stupid is forever. John Adams couldn't possibly be a Unitarian, because the unitarian chruch did not appear until 18 years after he died. My advice to all: Do a little research first before spewing out the first thing you find on your average atheistic/humanistic website.
In a letter to Jefferson, he wrote,
“They all believe that great Principle which has produced this boundless universe, Newton’s universe and Hershell’s universe, came down to this little ball, to be spit upon by Jews. And until this awful blasphemy is got rid of, there never will be any liberal science in the world.”[1]
I have looked through every source I have, and I cannot find a letter written Jan 22 1825. I have one written Jan 23 1825, and it has nothing to do with what Tom's written here. I finally came down to googling the quote itself. I came back with 5 definate responses. The first 3 were from breakthematrix/other places Tom has posted this. The fourth one was from an atheist blog that spends most of their space blasting Christians, and nothing more. The last one was from the Indianapolis Star, from here in Indiana where I now live (and anyone knows the Indianapolis Star, knows that it's just like any atheistic mainstream news source out there). The bottom line is this: I can't find any other reference to it. Perhaps it does exist somewhere, but first of all, this quote doesn't match up very well with other of John Adams' writings, which makes me a bit suspicious, though I stay open to its existance... and 2nd: most of the time, as Tom has shown in the past (if you go back and read my responses to some of his material), you'll see that he takes the quote out of context. This one's still in the air.
Neither Adams, Jefferson, Washington, nor Franklin believed that Jesus was literally the son of God or otherwise a divine being in any way.
Provide some sources. I wanna' see this. I'm sure others would to. Don't just go putting on paper what you want to believe, and expecting others to take it as fact.
Rather, they admired most of the moral principles of Christianity, although not all of them. For instance, they disagreed with Jesus’ doctrine to “turn the other cheek.” They believed that self defense of one’s life, liberty, and property was not only a right, but a duty.
Again... reference? First of all, Tom does not seem to understand that there are many circumstances to apply this teaching. If there was not a strong teaching of private property ownership in the Bible to begin with, there would not be property to give out as is talked about in Matthew chapter 5. The 'turn the other cheek' section is an example of many examples given by Christ at the sermon on the mount, but keep in mind his conclusion to wrap up all the examples into a thought:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;"
-Mat 5:43-44
If you come to my home dry with thirst, and I have water to give, you will not leave without it. What purpose would the atheist have to do such a thing? Just let the man die of thirst, and there's more water for yourself and your own. Christ was trying to break this mold of people only doing selfishly for themselves. He knew that a great nation cannot be constructed under selfish motive. In the past 100 years in this United States, we have certainly seen what selfish motive produces.
This teaching has nothing to do with protecting yourself, your family, your liberty, or you property. This is, again, the atheistic, evolutionary, humanistic author trying to justify his world without God.
However, it was the Christian principles of love and non-aggression that are espoused in virtually all religions that inspired John Adams to say, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”[2] This will become even more apparent shortly.
Love and non-aggression is NOT espoused in virtually all religions, and I don't have time to cover that because I wanna' get to this treaty of tripoli, and then I have to stop.
In any case, the answer to the first question is “yes.” Most of the founders believed in God. They revered the moral teachings of Christianity, although most of the philosophical leaders among them did not believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ.
But, lots of false arguments against it anyway... interesting.
Our second question is, “Was the United States founded as a Christian nation?” In 1796, the United States signed a treaty with Tripoli, promising a monetary gift in return for a cessation of hostilities. That treaty was unanimously ratified by the senate and signed by President John Adams. Among its articles resides the answer to our second question.
"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."[3] [emphasis added]
Thomas Jefferson confirmed this statement in his autobiography when commenting on a Virginia bill to establish religious freedom
I really wish I had more time folks, but I don't. I just wanna' get to this last point, but you can see already, just in the beginnings of Tom's writing, that he hasn't done all his research, and so I'd be careful about what you're reading from him. Some of what he says is truth, but eat the meat and spit out the bones.
1) Thomas Jefferson doesn't get to confirm the statement made in the Treaty of Tripoli. He didn't write it.
2) John Adams, though he signed it, does not confirm the statement made in the Treaty of Tripoli. He didn't write it. These two guys can agree with what's in that document, but they didn't write it.
3) Joel Barlow wrote the document. Who Joel Barlow? I would call him John Locke's bulldog. Joel was pushing chapters of John's book "Common Sense" when Locke was trying to get it published. Now we can start to see some connections of why this stuff appeals to Tom Mullens.
4) Nonetheless, aside from all that, let's read this carefully, not skimming through it looking for atheistic/humanistic justification.
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"
I agree with this statement. Probably for the same reason John Adams did. The US was fighting against the muslim pirates living in north African territory at the time.
When John Adams, and Thomas Jefferson tried to reason with the muslims, they responded with roughly the following:
"It was written in their Koran, that all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave; and that every muslim who was slain in this warfare was sure to go to paradise. He said, also, that the man who was the first to board a vessel had one slave over and above his share, and that when they sprang to the deck of an enemy's ship, every sailor held a dagger in each hand and a third in his mouth; which usually struck such terror into the foe that they cried out for quarter at once."
Thomas Jefferson refused to pay any more tribute for "protection" to the terrorists after he took presidency, and had to, by Constitutional executive order, go to war against the pirates in order to get back the US's stolen goods, and more importantly, US hostages. (a lot more details are in this, but I'm just giving the general idea)
The treaty was quickly signed and put into actions because, though we were winning, we were in a war we could not possibly afford. (10-20% of our entire federal revenue... sound familiar?) Article 11 was added for the purpose of reassuring the muslims that we had no quarrel with them because our government was a non-human entity, as described later in Art 11: "it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen"
That is correct. This document does NOT say that the United States was not founded on Christianity. Is says our GOVERNMENT was not founded on it. Our system of government cannot be religious... it is not a person. It cannot own property, have money, or produce children. It is intended only to be a non-biased, negative force.
Therefore, we didn't want them coming out to attack us again on the basis that we oppose them religiously -- "as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.", And mass murders and wars had been made against the muslims and protestants both, by the Catholic Church of England. (which might have actually started the muslim religion, but I'm not done doing research into that yet) In fact, at one point under colonial rule, it was illegal in this country to print a copy of the Bible.
That's it folks. There's nothing more to the Treaty... read it for yourself: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/TreatyofTripoli.gif
It's interesting also to note that I started reading some other opposite opinions on the Treaty of Tripoli, and I laughed when they came to the same conclusion a lot of them did. The treaty is talking about the formation of our federal government, not about the believes and stances of the founders and this United States. This is, as far as I'm aware, the best, and one of the only places the atheists reference to when they say that America isn't a Christian nation.
I've read that Tom has a master's degree in english from New York College. If that's true, he ought to be ashamed of himself for posting all this without having done his research. I'm sure he's a really kind guy, and probably fun to talk to, but kindness and personality have nothing to do with right and wrong.
Tom, what you're writing is wrong, and you'd better consider what you're teaching (because books and articles teach):
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." - Matthew 18:6
And that comes from the 'turn the other cheek' Son of God.
Also, if Tom reads this, I did receive your book. I appreciate that openness to criticism, and I will start reviewing it sometime in the next couple of months as I become available, but I'm bogged down with a lot of projects right now.
If you guys want more on the Treaty of Tripoli, read David Barton's well-documented article on it:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125
Barton provides a lot more information I just don't have time to post on here right now.
__________________________________________________
CreationLiberty.org
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau
Haven't been on here in a while again. I went back through looking for Tom Mullens to put up any of the refrences I requested in my response here for the vague statements posted in Tom's article.
Zero. Nothing. Not even a response to say "I'll look into it." This is the kinda' stuff you get from people who like to be willingly ignorant, aka "I don't know and I don't want to know."
2Peter 3:5 -- For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
That's exactly what I thought to begin with. He's writing this stuff based on his atheistic, humanistic worldview, without doing the research first. Tom, you, as well as the rest of us, will be judged for this. You will have to stand before God and give an account for lying to people if you're not willing to correct yourself. If you wanna' hide it from everyone, then you go ahead, but you're not gonna' fool me, and you will certainly answer before an Almighty God.
That's why I take what I write seriously. I'm gonna' start on your book soon, and I'll be posting the review of it on a lot of websites, but judging from what I've seen of these smut articles you write, it would probably take a small library to undo the damage you'll cause with this propaganda. You're acting no different than our government right now, and I would say you should be ashamed of yourself, but without a holy and righteous God, you probably have no idea what shame is.
_____________________________________________________
CreationLiberty.org
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root." - Henry David Thoreau
that one's inner life is a private sanctum that government can't and shouldn't regulate.
The fact remains, that our government is not obeying the constitution. It has cast aside the principle of non-agression, along with most of the other tenets you discussed above.
Many aware of the current situation will probably ask themselves why and how. The discussions about religion are an attempt to explain why some leaders feel justified in their illegal actions and how they are enabled by their beliefs, lack of beliefs, etc.
"If everyone just followed what Tom Jefferson said, we'd be fine" is a point you make.
But since they aren't one has to wonder why --- hence the relevant issue of religious belief and codes of conduct.
And actually, it is not the myth of Christianity that divides us at all. It is now the political divide on just how out of alignment our country now is with its roots, and the globalism and world agendas that were entered into by "unGodly" leaders such as Wilson who forsake his oath of office, whether he was a Christian, Jew or Muslim. Their oaths are to the Constitution, and the Christian faith has nothing to do with actually the true oath of honor all those that serve in our government are bound to uphold.
And that is what is dividing this country. Not Christianity at all. But treasonous leadership progressively (or regressively, in this case).
Betsy Ross
When writing on the founders and their beliefs, and the selective quotes which you are using, it might also help to know their personal histories, and where they were also coming from in that respect.
As with Jefferson, whose views changed as he aged and was also involved with Sally Hemings insofar as God's place in his life.
Betsy Ross
What a spin in parts on this. It is clear that in referring to a Creator as "Nature's God" they were referring to the God of Abraham across the board. And Jefferson's opinions also changed as his own maturity grew, and his affair with his mistress also clearly colored his then turning somewhat away from God and the Christian definitions. He did, after all, and history has now proven, hide a great deal of his personal peccadillios from the public and promised his wife upon her death that he would never remarry, so instead took his wife's slave wife and half sister as his mistress for his remaining years.
And John Adams actually was more a Puritan and Quaker in his upbringing and beliefs, than a "Unitarian" as you have stated. In fact, it was the Quaker's that were so vehemently opposed to slavery to begin with.
And the Tripoli Accord was also signed under duress, and threats, so you might do some inner work yourself and see if there are not many now that have made statements or signed "contracts" which they are either physically or psychologically threatened into signing, or have no "free will" or choice in the manner at all (such as the boilerplate contracts now that are "industry" standards in many of the commercial transactions in this country, and in which now even attempts to erase those "unalieanable" rights are deliberately included in those contracts, which has also contributed to the homelessness and poverty of many an American citizen).
And I don't know whether you are aware of this, but most Christians do not believe that Jesus was the "son of God" at all, but God incarnate in the flesh sent here in order to fulfill the Jewish law and thus as the only one whose character could do so, release Christians then from the burden of perpetual guilt when they transgress for whatever reasons, and who then provided the "second chance" of redemption for those sins between the individual and God and the injured party. Thus, the trinity belief is that God is three in one (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and not separate at all, nor Jesus the "son of God" as we would define father-son relationships, at all.
And freedom of religion was never meant to be freedom from religion, and the founders are also on record with respect to Biblical provisions being also the moral basis behind our civil and criminal codes in the common law, as you so stated, Locke also believed.
And you are splitting hairs on the "self evident" wording, which only meant that God imbibed the human spirit with these unalienable rights, which since he gave them to all, were "self evident" then to all those drafters.
But religion is definitely behind our moral codes and laws in this country, and was ever meant to be - not "science" or "philosophy" as in the Roman definition, at all. Since Rome really was not at all "free" or recognized any "unalienable" rights at all, but was based on a class system of government due to those same "philosophic" beliefs.
Betsy Ross