lpetrich

Which is likely something extremely contrived.

Buffman

Cthulhu

When I first read this particular post...

If you want to give 4 founders the majority of the credit, go ahead, but 55 signed the Constitution and made it work. I believe Washington to have been most instrumental and to have been a Christian based on some recent discoveries of my own, but there is absolutely no doubt of the beliefs and contributions of John Jay and Samuel Adams, whom we NEVER hear skeptics talk about.

....which is not only wrong, but a misquote of the original source(David Barton), who was also in error, I saw that Radorth had no fundamental desire to be accurate with the information he posted here. I felt that his lack of accuracy afforded me an opportunity to provide the most accurate information possible regarding these various items...even when not directly on issue. For example:

1. He has confused the DoI with the Constitution. David Barton's propaganda about the number of signers of the DoI is in error. There were 56, not 55, signers.

2. Of the 65 men chosen ( a total of 70 were invited) as delegates to the Constitutional Convention, only 55 ever attended. Of those 55, only "39" signed the final document.

<a href="http://www.wae.com/freedom/confath.html" target="_blank">http://www.wae.com/freedom/confath.html</a>

3. According to the James Madison notes about the Convention, George Washington barely ever addressed the assembled convention beyond his acceptance speech as President, and his remarks on the 17th of September, the closing day.(See "James Madison: Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787" Vol II, by Gaillard Hunt and James Brown Scott, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, New York, 1987, pg 579.)

4. The business of "recent discoveries" lending support to the claim that Washington was a Christian, became rather confused. When queried Radorth seemed unable to provide specific references. He did offer a lead that I was able to track down after a considerable amount of research that revealed "one" document, signed by Washington, although written by an Aide, where the word "Jesus" appeared. I had no qualms about posting that entire document for all to see. Radorth declared this a victory for Christianity. I merely chortled at the simplicity of his belief. (i.e.: Washington mentions Jesus Christ once in his lifetime and that means he is a devout, dedicated, fundamentalist, Christian responsible for the Christian Constitution? Oh my! Oh my! Oh my!) I never did find out what his other "discoveries" were.

5. The radical right Christian references to John Jay are well known and researched. However, he was not at the signing of the DoI nor a delegate to the Const. Con. Alexander Hamilton knew that New York state would be a difficult sell on voting to ratify the new Constitution. He decided to mount a powerful propaganda campaign. He recruited John Jay to assist in the four time weekly articles in the local newspapers supporting ratification. Thus were "The Federalist Papers" created with Hamilton, Jay and Madison acting as an author named "Publius." Of the 85 letters, 36 criticizing the old government and 49 analyzing the new one being proposed, Jay wrote #'s 2,3,4,5,6, & 64. (Jay had been wounded in a street riot soon after the first publications.) There is paucity of religious discussion in these 85 letters. If these three men wished to promote a Christian Nation theme, this was certainly a perfect place to do that. They did not. They promoted a secular central government.

6. Samuel Adams was a powerful force in the drive toward independence. He was a signer of the DoI, and though selected to attend the Const. Con., he did not. I am not sure what point Radorth wishes to make about Samuel Adams.

<a href="http://www.uc.edu/news/samadams.htm" target="_blank">http://www.uc.edu/news/samadams.htm</a>

Thus, your excellent post, attempting to get Radorth to provide specifics concerning the stated topic issue, is like attempting to nail Jell-O to the wall. He appears to use the information we provide to dance around the real issues and then claim a victory for Jesus and Christianity. It is an old, tiresome, propaganda technique when there aren't enough accurate, verifiable, facts available to support one's religious faith beliefs. However, I appreciate the opportunity he provides me to present more background information for the particular audience reading these forums from which they will be better able to recognize and respond to the plethora of misinformation being generated by the radical Christian right and their fellow travelers.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Dr Rick

lpetrich; check-out <a href="http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm" target="_blank">http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/adams.htm</a> and while your at it click-on the link to the home page.

Rick

Zimyatin

I'd like to add one thing to this thread. It's quite clear to me that our nation was founded on admiration of ancient Greece and Rome. After all, the Romans had a "Senate" too and just about all capital buildings are in the Greco-Roman style. And I believe it is generally accepted that the founders - like all men of the enlightment - studied ancient history.

To refute the utterly unsupportable assertion that our nation was founded on Christian principles, I offer
<a href="http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/GREECE/PERICLES.HTM" target="_blank">Pericles Funeral Oration Speech</a>. It is a speech, as gathered by Thucydides, where Pericles describes the greatness of Athens after the first year of the Peloponnesian war. To me, the most compelling case that Greece, and not the bible, was America's founding base is here:

I mean dammit! Everyone is equal before the law. Place a person's merit above their social status. The right to privacy. An American politician could be giving this speech. And it was given 500 years before the bible was written by men. 2400 years before the Declaration of Independence.

Buffman

Radorth

...for Jonathon Dayton reports that on July 2,

Is this the source document being used to make your claims?

<a href="http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/practical-christianity/founding-fathers-questions/FFQ0702-10.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ankerberg.com/Articles/practical-christianity/founding-fathers-questions/FFQ0702-10.htm</a>

In which of these did you find the original source document verifying and confirming David Barton's statement?

<a href="http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/guidedisplay.pl?index=D000165" target="_blank">http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/guidedisplay.pl?index=D000165</a>

<a href="http://www.clements.umich.edu/Webguides/Arlenes/D/Dayton.html" target="_blank">http://www.clements.umich.edu/Webguides/Arlenes/D/Dayton.html</a>

Perhaps this is more edifying:

<a href="http://www.jmu.edu/madison/gpos225-madison2/adopt.htm" target="_blank">http://www.jmu.edu/madison/gpos225-madison2/adopt.htm</a>

(Extract)
By the end of June, debate between the large and small states over the issue of representation in the first chamber of the legislature was becoming increasingly acrimonious. Delegates from Virginia and other large states demanded that voting in Congress be according to population; representatives of smaller states insisted upon the equality they had enjoyed under the articles. With the oratory degenerating into threats and accusations, Benjamin Franklin appealed for daily prayers. Dressed in his customary gray homespun, the aged philosopher pleaded that "the Father of lights . . . illuminate our understandings." Franklin's appeal for prayers was never fulfilled; the convention, as Hugh Williamson noted, had no funds to pay a preacher.

On June 29 the delegates from the small states lost the first battle. The convention approved a resolution establishing population as the basis for representation in the House of Representatives, thus favoring the larger states. On a subsequent small-state proposal that the states have equal representation in the Senate, the vote resulted in a tie. With large-state delegates unwilling to compromise on this issue, one member thought that the convention "was on the verge of dissolution, scarce held together by the strength of an hair."

By July 10 George Washington was so frustrated over the deadlock that he bemoaned "having had any agency" in the proceedings and called the opponents of a strong central government "narrow minded politicians . . . under the influence of local views." Luther Martin of Maryland, perhaps one whom Washington saw as "narrow minded," thought otherwise. A tiger in debate, not content merely to parry an opponent's argument but determined to bludgeon it into eternal rest, Martin had become perhaps the small states' most effective, if irascible, orator. The Marylander leaped eagerly into the battle on the representation issue declaring, "The States have a right to an equality of representation. This is secured to us by our present articles of confederation; we are in possession of this privilege."

The Great Compromise
Also crowding into this complicated and divisive discussion over representation was the North-South division over the method by which slaves were to be counted for purposes of taxation and representation. On July 12 Oliver Ellsworth proposed that representation for the lower house be based on the number of free persons and three-fifths of "all other persons," a euphemism for slaves. In the following week the members finally compromised, agreeing that direct taxation be according to representation and that the representation of the lower house be based on the white inhabitants and three-fifths of the "other people." With this compromise and with the growing realization that such compromise was necessary to avoid a complete breakdown of the convention, the members then approved Senate equality. Roger Sherman had remarked that it was the wish of the delegates "that some general government should be established." With the crisis over representation now settled, it began to look again as if this wish might be fulfilled.

For the next few days the air in the City of Brotherly Love, although insufferably muggy and swarming with blue-bottle flies, had the clean scent of conciliation. In this period of welcome calm, the members decided to appoint a Committee of Detail to draw up a draft constitution. The convention would now at last have something on paper. As Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, John Rutledge, Edmund Randolph, James Wilson, and Oliver Ellsworth went to work, the other delegates voted themselves a much needed 10-day vacation.

During the adjournment, Gouverneur Morris and George Washington rode out along a creek that ran through land that had been part of the Valley Forge encampment 10 years earlier. While Morris cast for trout, Washington pensively looked over the now lush ground where his freezing troops had suffered, at a time when it had seemed as if the American Revolution had reached its end. The country had come a long way.
(End extract)

Thus it would seem that the period of friendlier relations between delegates began s few days before the 10 day adjournment that began on the eve of 26 July and lasted until 6 August 1787 and not immediately after Franklin's call for prayer on 28 June. Additionally several delegates were clergymen/preachers and could have easily offered their services to the convention for free, which makes Hugh Williamson's note about the lack of funds rather academic.

Care to inform us exactly when Congress started opening sessions with prayer Buffman?

What do Congressional prayers have to do with the lack of prayers in the Constitution Convention? I can only suspect that you have not enjoyed being exposed for what you are as often as you are. If it makes you feel more virile and righteous to play with me, by all means do so. I welcome the continuous opportunity to expose propaganda and non-critical reasoning...whether by theist or non-theist. The issue remains for you to identify the specific passages in the Holy Bible that are directly, unequivocally, related to the creation of the U.S. Constitution.

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

hezekiah jones

Radorth, say it ain't so!

Buffman

Radorth

On another point raised by skeptics above, Federer, an admittedly tendentious reporter at times, says that the phrase "is in no sense a Christian nation" did not appear in at least one Arabic version of the treaty, and "appears to be an unauthorized insertion by Joel arlow, the American consul at Algiers..."

It does have an extremely political taint to it, so I would like to know the truth of the matter. Federer cites Charles Bevans Treaties and Other international Agreements of the United States of America (Washington D.C.,Dept of State, 1974)

If it was inserted, or later deleted by Congress, as Federer also asserts, Daggah will be busy doing damage control I presume.

Daggah has nothing to fear.

Read this:

<a href="http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm" target="_blank">http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796t.htm</a>

Now read this..and please pay attention this time. I grow weary of posting it for you.

<a href="http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/archive/boston_tripoli.html" target="_blank">http://www.freethought-web.org/ctrl/archive/boston_tripoli.html</a>

[ December 11, 2002: Message edited by: Buffman ]</p>

Autonemesis

Then please explain the 1700 some-odd years of Christianity that preceeded the Contitutional Convention.

Radcliffe Emerson

[QUOTE]This is especially ironic in that the percentage of Americans who would classify themselves as "christians" is without doubt lower today than it was in 1789.

Actually, less than 10% of the population in this country attended any church in 1789. The percentage of church attenders in this country did not rise above 50% until World War II.

Radorth

Daggah?! Hello?

Obviously you need Buffman way more than I do.

Rad