Buffman

fromtheright

You have earned my respect for being able to admit that David Barton is not an honorable individual. My distress is not derived simply from Barton's pseudohistory and overt lies. It is derived from the fact that millions of Americans continue to believe and support him. Any Christian minister/pastor that continues to use Barton's statements as representative of accurate history are instantly suspect about every thing else they are feeding to their sheep. When they claim that Church-State Separation is a liberal myth and that this is a Christian Nation, the only evidence they offer is that of a David Barton statement. Therefore, what am I to conclude about those religious leaders that continue to do this...or those individuals that continue to espouse your position on the C-SS "issue?"

Did you ever read through the 16 items that the Senate used to support their stand on the "under God" issue of the Pledge of Allegiance? Did you read the post in this forum that exposed the lies and half-truths in that Resolution...signed by 99 United States Senators? Please don't tell me that David Barton didn't contribute to the development of those 16 items, either personally or through loyal surrogates. Please try to appreciate why I get frustrated at those folks who don't take the time to do their own homework and get to the original facts. That is the only way you are ever going to understand why I take such umbrage with those who hold your opinion regarding the importance to our national unity and survival concerning the C-SS "issue." Here are just a few views of others who do recognize the damage that Barton is doing to our America..and that so many Christian conservatives seem to be supporting because it helps to give them a power they would probably not have had if it weren't for the blind faith religious support of the fundamentalist sheep who only care about eternal life not the freedoms provided by our Constitution.


<a href="http://www.detnet.com/wilke/dbarton.htm" target="_blank">http://www.detnet.com/wilke/dbarton.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.tfn.org/religiousright/profiles/wallbuilders.htm" target="_blank">http://www.tfn.org/religiousright/profiles/wallbuilders.htm</a>

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000767" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000767</a>

<a href="http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/diamond1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/diamond1.htm</a>

(Extract)
They do sit still, by the thousands, for David Barton of WallBuilders, Inc. From a place called Aledo, Texas, Barton has successfully mass marketed a version of dominion theology that has made his lectures, books, and tapes among the hottest properties in the born-again business. With titles like The Myth of Separation and America: to Pray or Not to Pray, Barton's pitch is that, with the possible exception of Benjamin Franklin, the Founding Fathers were all evangelicals who intended to make this a Christian nation.

Crowds of home schoolers and the Christian Coalition go wild with applause for Barton's performances. With an overhead projector, he flashes slides of the Founding Fathers and reels off selected quotes from them saying things like "only the righteous shall rule." For the years following the Supreme Court's 1962 and 1963 decisions against public school prayer, his charts and graphs show statistical declines in SAT scores and rising rates of teenage promiscuity, drug abuse, and other bad behavior. Apparently no one has ever explained to Barton that a sequence of unrelated events does not add up to a cause and effect relationship.

Barton's bottom line is that only "the righteous" should occupy public office. This is music to the ears of Christian Right audiences. To grasp Barton's brand of dominion theology, unlike reconstructionism, one does not need a seminary degree. Barton's pseudo history fills a need most Americans have, to know more about our country's past. His direct linkage of the deified Founding Fathers with contemporary social problems cuts through the evangelicals' theological sectarianism and unites them in a feasible project. They may not be able to take dominion over the whole earth or even agree about when Jesus will return, but they sure can go home and back a godly candidate for city council, or run themselves. Barton tells his audiences that they personally have an important role to play in history, and that is what makes his dominion theology popular.
End extract)

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000713" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=59&t=000713</a>

fromtheright

Buffman,

Besides tax exemption for churches, what about Christian involvement in politics concerns you? You have said that their involvement per se doesn't concern you but you have said that the CSS is a propaganda tool for gaining political power. What about them having power bothers you? Is it their worldview and belief in moral absolutes, or using those absolutes as a guide in public policy? Is it the public policies themselves, such as opposition to abortion or homosexuality? If I am mis-stating you, my apologies. Also, is there a "middle ground" between what you seem to see as being hellbent on theocracy and strict separation?

Also, are there those writing/speaking on the Christian/conservative side of the debate whom you respect. Your disgust for Barton is palpable and understandable but are there others who make respectable adversaries in this controversy? What of more moderate opponents, such as Robert Cord (author, Separation of Church and State, which book, as I noted earlier, I challenged Barton with and he abruptly dimissed it)? Are others, such as Michael McConnell, tainted by essentially being on this side of the issue, or do you fault his scholarship? On what (I've read very, very little McConnell myself, would like to read more, there are a couple of collections in Amazon I've got my eye on)?

Buffman

fromtheright

Besides tax exemption for churches, what about Christian involvement in politics concerns you?

My concern is government's involvement with religion. I believe that you are projecting your own biases on me with that opening statement.

You have said that their involvement per se doesn't concern you but you have said that the CSS is a propaganda tool for gaining political power.

Since 1791, how many elected politicians can you name that didn't profess a religious belief of some manner? So their personal religious beliefs are not the issue. It is the legislation which they create, or the actions which they take, to favor one, monotheistic, religious belief over all other beliefs that disturbs me. (In this current environment, it is Protestant fundamentalism.) IMHO, the current effort by the radical religious right, and yes, many political conservatives, to undermine the C-SS part of our Constitution is a threat to the unity/cohesiveness of our country and to the freedom of individual religious, or non-religious, conscience which attracted so many to our shores.

What about them having power bothers you?

Using government to advance their specific form of supernatural faith belief.

Is it their worldview and belief in moral absolutes, or using those absolutes as a guide in public policy?

(I am having difficulty believing that you gave much thought to these questions.) How do I penetrate to the core of my concerns so you can see and understand them? Do you believe that the government of Saudi Arabia uses your Christian moral absolutes as a guide to their public policy? Do you believe that Papal encyclicals are the Christian moral absolutes that should be followed by all Protestants as a guide to public policy? If your answer is "No" to either of those questions, why don't you try and explain why Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, Wiccans, Freethinkers, etc, should be forced, by any elected U.S. Government (federal, state or local), to follow the so-called moral absolutes of a specific group of Christian Protestants as guides to public policy? Thus, it is our government turning one faith belief's opinion about moral absolutes into laws, or guides, that disturbs me...and should disturb every critical thinking American.

Is it the public policies themselves, such as opposition to abortion or homosexuality? If I am mis-stating you, my apologies.

I honestly don't know how to answer that question. My position is very straight forward. No American government should be in the business of legislating "religious" morality. No religious faith belief is vested with the one, the only, the ultimate, morality. This is another part of the religious right propaganda campaign. ..attempting to convince people that without a faith belief in their supernatural God, a person can not be moral. Hogwash!

Also, is there a "middle ground" between what you seem to see as being hellbent on theocracy and strict separation?

NO! Strict separation is the only protection the minority have from the majority. And that is true of each Christian denomination as well as other religious sect beliefs and those with no religious belief. (I can no longer recall just how many times I have referred you to James Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance.")

Also, are there those writing/speaking on the Christian/conservative side of the debate whom you respect.

I have provided numerous URLs to Christians who appreciate the threat to the Freedom of Religion in this country. I have not found many conservatives who are what I would call "my kind of conservative." I am a registered Republican. Is that conservative? It used to be until the religious right took over the Party and decided that only its moral absolutes deserved being called conservative. A great many conservatives are "pro-choice." Does that make them immoral? There are many Christians and conservatives that support "gay rights." Does that make them immoral? Well, according to many in elected, and appointed, government position of power today, it does make them immoral. Additionally, if one does not profess a belief in a supernatural Protestant God , that person is considered immoral, un-American and un-Patriotic by these same arrogant, absolutist, Christian fundamentalist politicians. Is that your belief also?

Your disgust for Barton is palpable...

Why not simply "accurate?" How many times do you allow someone to fire real bullets at you before you fire back...if you haven't been brainwashed or unarmed?

...and understandable but are there others who make respectable adversaries in this controversy?

In this "artificial controversy?" Yes!

What of more moderate opponents, such as Robert Cord (author, Separation of Church and State, which book, as I noted earlier, I challenged Barton with and he abruptly dimissed it)? Are others, such as Michael McConnell, tainted by essentially being on this side of the issue, or do you fault his scholarship? On what (I've read very, very little McConnell myself, would like to read more, there are a couple of collections in Amazon I've got my eye on)?

<a href="http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/bios/mcconnellm.html" target="_blank">http://www.law.utah.edu/faculty/bios/mcconnellm.html</a>

<a href="http://www.au.org/mcconnell.htm" target="_blank">http://www.au.org/mcconnell.htm</a>

<a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/michaelmcconnellsupportletter.htm" target="_blank">http://www.usdoj.gov/olp/michaelmcconnellsupportletter.htm</a>

(I don't trust anything with John Ashcroft's imprimatur on it. Especially since the Bush administration did away with the Bar Association's review of legal nominees...because there might be too much of a "liberal" bias associated with their recommendations.) Are you unable to discern a pattern from this?

<a href="http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/mcconnell.html" target="_blank">http://www.now.org/issues/legislat/nominees/mcconnell.html</a>

<a href="http://www.rcrc.org/newsroom/Pr2002/MichaelMcConnell.htm" target="_blank">http://www.rcrc.org/newsroom/Pr2002/MichaelMcConnell.htm</a>

(Extract)
The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice is an alliance of 38 Christian and Jewish organizations, representing 16 traditions, including the Episcopal Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), United Church of Christ, United Methodist Church, Unitarian Universalist Association, and Reform and Conservative Judaism. While we have diverse beliefs about abortion, we are unified on fact that there is no one belief as to when life begins, either in theology or in science, and that government must not legislate, and thus impose, religious views about the beginning of life. To do so would violate our right to religious freedom.
(End extract)

[ October 29, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Radorth

I do not think David Barton is trustworthy. I do not support prayer in public schools, nor do I accept any strict definition of what a "Christian nation" is. However if we are talking about whether the founders desired that the nation operate on nascent Christian principles, I believe they did.

I do wish skeptics here would argue that a secular society is really better, and why it is, rather than arguing the founders ever intended such. The evidence is to the contrary, given the following facts and quotes:

Franklin, late in life, to his friend Whitefield:

"I sometimes wish that you and I were jointly employed by the Crown to settle a colony in Ohio...to settle in that fine country a strong body of religious and industrious people. Might it not greatly facilitate the introduction of pure religion among the heathen, if we could, by such a colony, show them a better sample of Christians than they commonly see in our Indian traders?"

John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1813:

"The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only principles on which that assembly of young men could unite.. and what were those General principles? I answer the general principles of Christianity in which all these sects were united: and the general principles of English and American Liberty.... Now I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature, and our terrestrial mundane system."

Thomas Jefferson

"No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to that which flowed from his lips, the whole world at this day. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel. I have little doubt that the whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator, and I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also". (Library of American Literature Vol III pp 283-284).

James Madison:

"The belief in a God all powerful, wise and good is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from to many sources nor adapted with to much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it."

And those are just the "deists," who are claimed by skeptics to be of like mind as they.

Alex DeToqueville noted:

"In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation on earth."

The first amendment came to be written as it was because of two basic fears:

1. Some proposed versions appeared to "to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether."

2. One or two sects might be allowed "preeminence" over others.

In one of the most telling facts of all, Madison proposed inserting "national" before "religion" in the following proposed wording:

"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

The implications are interesting. There was no intention to remove the influence of "religion" from government affairs, not by even the most critical founders. Their problem was how to keep the baby and get rid of the dirty bathwater. And if there was one "religion" they hoped would have any preeminence it was, as Jefferson said, the nascent teachings of Jesus with "nothing added."

Rad

Toto

Rad - there are so many phony quotes out there, and so many quotes taken out of context, that you must give citations if you quote any founding father.

The quote from Franklin seems to date to 1756, hardly the latter part of his life (I found it <a href="http://www.fbinstitute.com/armitage/ch14.html" target="_blank">here</a>.

Jefferson's reference to the "pure doctrines of Jesus" is a Deist reference, not a Christian one. He thought that Christians had missed the point on Jesus, and extracted what he thought was the true teaching of Jesus by cutting out the parts of the New Testament that involved supernaturalism.

Radorth

And? How does that fact, if true, take anything away from his desire to see the nascent Gospel spread. He also wrote to Ezra Stiles, that these teachings ..."as he left them to us, is the best the World ever saw, or is likely to see."

Please give a link showing he "cut out" major portions. Jefferson did, but I have not seen what Franklin did. How was he a deist if he believed in a final judgment, an afterlife, and believed that God is interested and involved in the affairs of men?

As to the date of the quote, it comes from the very last letter he wrote to Whitefield in which he says "being now in the last Act..."

I could not find it on you site, and I don't know how you gleaned the date anyway.

Yes there are "bad" quotes out there, but they are rather few and I try to track the ones which have weak references. OTOH I don't go around accusing people of simply making them up. These "conspiracy" accusations are getting old and terribly over used.

Rad

Toto

Let's make it clear who 'he' is. You quote Ben Franklin with an alleged desire to see the Gospel spread. If you click on the link and search for 'Benjamin Franklin' you will find the quote dated to 1756. Franklin did not cut parts out of the New Testament, Jefferson did.

Jefferson did not believe in the divinity of Christ. He thought that Jesus was a moral teacher. That makes him "not a Christian" in anyone's book.

Rad - you have evidently not bothered to read the meticulous research backing up the claim that Barton makes up quotes and/or takes them out of context. If you won't do your homework, there's no sense trying to carry on a conversation with you.

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Toto ]</p>

fromtheright

I'm sure it's in another thread but would someone please list for me the traits of the Deist God? In the meantime I'll do some looking around for it. How did He differ from the Unitarian conception of God?

Below is an excerpt from this <a href="http://members.aol.com/TestOath/deism.htm#unitarianism" target="_blank">website</a> giving a contemporaneous definition of Unitarianism:

Unitarianism appeared in America as early as 1785; its doctrines were stated by William Ellery Channing in 1819, with the American Unitarian Association being formed in 1825. The Theological Dictionary of 1823 described Unitarians thusly:
In common with other Christians, they confess that He [Jesus] is the Christ, the Son of the Living God; and in one word, they believe all that the writers of the New Testament, particularly the four Evangelists, have stated concerning him.

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

Radorth

OK, so Frank Lambert and the Baptists disagree on the date, not the writings.


I have read it, I don't rust him as a source, and he is not the source for the above. I will list more quotes, and various sources, tomorrow. Perhaps then you can find another reason to avoid the implications of the quotes, the issue of what the founders thought of Jesus' teaching, and whether they lived by them.

I am NOT arguing they were Christians per se. That is beside the point.

Rad

[ November 02, 2002: Message edited by: Radorth ]</p>

Buffman

Radorth

I do not think David Barton is trustworthy. I do not support prayer in public schools, nor do I accept any strict definition of what a "Christian nation" is. However if we are talking about whether the founders desired that the nation operate on nascent Christian principles, I believe they did.

I agree with everything accept "nascent Christian principles." Christian moral teachings already existed and had already been perverted to include stealing land from, and slaughtering, native Americans...if they refused to convert to Christianity; using African slave labor to fatten their own pocketbooks; killing and persecuting Christians and non-Christians who were practicing beliefs other than those authorized and supported by certain colonies; killing other Christians, including colonial neighbors, because of secular grievances; demonstrating complete intolerance for anyone that did not profess a worshipful faith in the denominationally specific Protestant deities; etc. Are these the Christian "principles" to which you refer to as being nascent?

Of course the founders promoted morality. They would have been utter fools not to do so. And since there was basically only one morality available to the general colonial public of those days, Protestant Christianity, naturally it was supported by those men who could only hold elected office if they professed a belief in that specific religious dogma.(Why else do you think that Article 6, Sect. 3 was included in the Constitution?)--- Why do you think that so many denominational preachers claimed that Jefferson was an atheist because he would not worship a "Christian" deity?

(Given your posts elsewhere, and your statements here, I am really not sure that it is wise for me to offer you any meaningful discussion. You seem to have your mind already locked down tightly and do not appear willing to discuss these things in an objective and accurate manner. I can only hope that I am wrong about why you have elected to make these current posts when the answers to several of your remarks already exist if you would only take the time to research them as thoroughly as you claim you do. I guess the only fair thing for me to do is address each of your thoughts/quotes/whatevers as accurately as I can so that others may benefit from our posts.)

I do wish skeptics here would argue that a secular society is really better, and why it is, rather than arguing the founders ever intended such. The evidence is to the contrary, given the following facts and quotes:

First, what is your definition of a "skeptic?"

Second, we are supposed to have a federal republic form of government. IMO, we are also a pluralistic society which functions through democratically elected representatives. Thus, the government must provide protections for the minorities from the majorities. Do you agree or disagree? If you agree, then what is your definition of "secular society?"

Third, you claim that the evidence is to the contrary. The verifiable evidence of what? That it isn't a secular society? That it isn't a secular government? That the founders, which you do not identify, never intended that it be a secular government? I am very much at a loss to know exactly what you are claiming, and hopefully we can deal with just one, specific, claim at a time instead multiples.

Franklin, late in life, to his friend Whitefield:
"I sometimes wish that you and I were jointly employed by the Crown to settle a colony in Ohio...to settle in that fine country a strong body of religious and industrious people. Might it not greatly facilitate the introduction of pure religion among the heathen, if we could, by such a colony, show them a better sample of Christians than they commonly see in our Indian traders?"

Might I recommend that you provide more complete citations for these quotes in order that I might verify them with greater ease. Whitefield died in 1770, about 20 years before Franklin, six before the DoI and 17 before the Constitutional Convention. Thank you.

Additionally, you might find the following quotes even more enlightening, especially the one written to the Rev. George Whitehead in 1753.

<a href="http://exchristian.net/xtains/franklin.html" target="_blank">http://exchristian.net/xtains/franklin.html</a>

Though I have not personally validated the information at this next URL, you might find it to be a very beneficial with which to find further support for you allegations about Franklin's degree of Christian orthodoxy concerning the founder's true intentions about morality and the need separate government from organized religion. (I did not say government from ethical/moral values.)

<a href="http://www.chuckiii.com/Reports/Biographies/Ben_Franklins_Religion.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.chuckiii.com/Reports/Biographies/Ben_Franklins_Religion.shtml</a>

John Adams in a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1813:
"The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only principles on which that assembly of young men could unite.. and what were those General principles? I answer the general principles of Christianity in which all these sects were united: and the general principles of English and American Liberty.... Now I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature, and our terrestrial mundane system."

Exactly who was that "assembly of young men," and what were their specific religious beliefs?

<a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm" target="_blank">http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm</a>

Thomas Jefferson
"No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to that which flowed from his lips, the whole world at this day. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel. I have little doubt that the whole country will soon be rallied to the unity of our creator, and I hope, to the pure doctrines of Jesus also". (Library of American Literature Vol III pp 283-284).

Your quote seems to be missing some things...as well as being 'jury-rigged' a la Barton. Were you to do some thorough research, you would discover that there was no love lost between Jefferson and Pickering.

(Extract)
To Timothy Pickering, on a Sermon by Doctor Channing
I THANK you for Mr. Channing's discourse, which you have been so kind as to forward me. It is not yet at hand, but is doubtless on its way. I had, received it through another channel, and read it with high satisfaction. No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advances toward rational Christianity. When we shall have done away the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one, and one is three; when we shall have knocked down the artificial scaffolding, reared to mask from view the simple structure of Jesus; when, in short, we shall have unlearned every-thing which has been taught since his day, and got back to the pure and simple doctrines, he inculcated, we shall then be truly and worthily, his disciples; and my opinion is that if nothing had ever been added to what flowed purely from his lips, the whole world would at this day have been Christian. I know that the case you cite, of Dr. Drake, has been a common one. The religion-builders have so distorted and deformed the doctrines of Jesus, so muffled them in mysticisms, fancies, and falsehoods, have caricatured them into forms so monstrous and inconceivable, as to shock reasonable thinkers, to revolt them against the whole, and drive them rashly to pronounce its founder an impostor. Had there never been a commentator, there never would have been an infidel. In the present advance of truth, which we both approve, I do not know that you and I may think alike
(End extract)

<a href="http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nordland.htm" target="_blank">http://members.tripod.com/~candst/nordland.htm</a>

(Mr. Nordlander incorrectly identifies Timothy Pickering as Thomas Pickerlng)

(Extract)
As Bernard Katz virtually closed Part I of his essay with Thomas Jefferson's remark to Thomas Pickerlng made in a letter dated February 27, 1821, it seems only fitting that the quotation ought to be repeated with the thought that follows, a thought that Katz chose to omit:
"No one sees with greater pleasure than myself the progress of reason in its advances toward rational Christianity. When we shall have done away (with) the incomprehensible jargon of the Trinitarian arithmetic, that three are one and one is three..." (Seldes, p. 374).
If Christianity as perceived by Jefferson was the goal to be reached by the citizens of this country then historical Christianity as it is known and practiced would be dead--the Vatican would be viewed with disdain by all Americans; and Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and the rest of that gang would be unknown to the American public. The Christian nation, if it can be called such, that Bernard Katz alleges the Founding Fathers were intent on establishing, would, for all practical purposes, be a Humanist nation. It would contain nothing that could be historically described as Christian.
(End extract)

(Info on the Jefferson Bible)

<a href="http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/" target="_blank">http://www.angelfire.com/co/JeffersonBible/</a>

James Madison:
"The belief in a God all powerful, wise and good is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from to many sources nor adapted with to much solicitude to the different characters and capacities to be impressed with it."

Here is the complete letter:

TO FREDERICK BEASLEY
Montpellier, Nov. 20, 1825
I have duly recd the copy of your little tract on the proofs of the Being & Attributes of God. To do full justice to it, would require not only a more critical attention than I have been able to bestow on it, but a resort to the celebrated work of Dr. Clarke, which I read fifty years ago only, and to that of Dr. Waterland also which I never read.
The reasoning that could satisfy such a mind as that of Clarke, ought certainly not to be slighted in the discussion. And the belief in a God All Powerful wise & good, is so essential to the moral order of the World & to the happiness of man, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters & capacities to be impressed with it.
But whatever effect may be produced on some minds by the more abstract train of ideas which you so strongly support, it will probably always be found that the course of reasoning from the effect to the cause, "from Nature to Nature's God," Will be the more universal & more persuasive application.
The finiteness of the human understanding betrays itself on all subjects, but more especially when it contemplates such as involve infinity. What may safely be said seems to be, that the infinity of time & space forces itself on our conception, a limitation of either being inconceivable; that the mind prefers at once the idea of a self-existing cause to that of an infinite series of cause & effect, which augments, instead of avoiding the difficulty; and that it finds more facility in assenting to the self-existence of an invisible cause possessing infinite power, wisdom & goodness, than to the self-existence of the universe, visibly destitute of those attributes, and which may be the effect of them. In this comparative facility of conception & belief, all philosophical Reasoning on the subject must perhaps terminate. But that I may not get farther beyond my depth, and without the resources which bear you up in fathoming efforts, I hasten to thank you for the favour which has made me your debtor, and to assure you of my esteem & my respectful regards.
Letter from James Madison to Frederick Beasley (Nov. 20, 1825), in 9 The Papers of James Madison, 1819-1836, at 229 (Gaillard Hunt ed., 1910).



And those are just the "deists," who are claimed by skeptics to be of like mind as they.

The Deists did/do not accept the divinity of Jesus. Therefore they do not accept the biblical miracles. Jews do not accept the divinity of Jesus. Muslims do not accept the divinity of Jesus. Atheists do not accept the divinity of Jesus. "Skeptics" may, or may not, accept that divinity. That's why I asked you to define "skeptics."

Alex DeToqueville noted:
"In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation on earth."

Here is the complete original paragraph. I have no idea where you obtained yours.

<a href="http://americanciv.uchicago.edu/Tocqueville.html" target="_blank">http://americanciv.uchicago.edu/Tocqueville.html</a>

"One may suppose that a certain number of Americans, in the worship they offer to God, are following their habits rather than their convictions. Besides, in the United States the sovereign authority is religious, and consequently hypocrisy should be common. Nonetheless, America is still the place where the Christian religion has kept the greatest real power over men's souls; and nothing better demonstrates how useful and natural it is to man, since the country where it now has widest sway is both the most enlightened and the freest."

First, do you know who Alexis de Tocqueville was? How old he was when he came to America? What year he came here? Why he came here? How long he stayed here and what he did during that time? Do you know when he wrote Volumes One and Two. Do you know who helped him to compile both volumes? Did you read what he had to say in Volume Two, Part One, Chapter Five? How about these little goodies from throughout his writings?

"There are religions that are very false and very absurd..."

"Religious peoples are therefore naturally strong in precisely the spot where democratic peoples are weak; this makes very visible how important it is that men keep to their religion when becoming equal."

"While I was in America, a witness called at assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York) declared that he did not believe in the existence of God and the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to allow him to be sworn in, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all possible confidence in his testimony. Newspapers reported the fact without comment."

Are these the comments of someone who would support the separation of Church-State? Not hardly!

The first amendment came to be written as it was because of two basic fears:
1. Some proposed versions appeared to "to have a tendency to abolish religion altogether."
2. One or two sects might be allowed "preeminence" over others.
In one of the most telling facts of all, Madison proposed inserting "national" before "religion" in the following proposed wording:
"No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed."

The implications are interesting. There was no intention to remove the influence of "religion" from government affairs, not by even the most critical founders. Their problem was how to keep the baby and get rid of the dirty bathwater. And if there was one "religion" they hoped would have any preeminence it was, as Jefferson said, the nascent teachings of Jesus with "nothing added."

If you do enough research, and study enough, you may come to appreciate that was talking about ethical/moral values, not Christianity. If you really wish to know what went on as the Congressional Committee discussed the Bill of Rights, might I suggest that you read "The Complete Bill of Rights: The Drafts, Debates, Sources, & Origins" edited by Neil H. Cogan, Oxford University Press, New York, 1997. (Chapter 1, Amendment I, Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses, Pgs. 1-82)

[ November 03, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>