Founding Fathers Were Anti-Christians

reply to post by marg6043


Marg, I know you and I very rarely agree but you are absolutely correct. When this debate rolls around, people forget the context of what inspired the sentiments behind the founding fathers. Most of them were Christians and not Anti Christian.

Their problem was government controlling religion. We absolutely have to know what was going on in Europe prior to this to understand. Every time a new monarch took the throne, the state religion would change and anyone who was the opposite would be killed. Then the monarchy would change again, and everyone on the other side would be killed. It was a horrible fiasco between Catholicism and Protestantism and the endorsement by the monarchy would change with new rulers.

Not to mention the government mandated church system that could throw you in prison or burn you at the stake for 'heresy.'

THAT is what our forefathers wanted to change. Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion. They didn't want one's religious beliefs to be forced on them by the state. That's really all it comes down to.

reply to post by AshleyD


Yes very true, I agree, one thing is to be totally godless and another to just be able to worship as per personal choice.

That is why I keep bringing back that our founder fathers were not godless for the contrary they just didn't want anybody to tell them how to worship and when to worship.

I posted a littler bit of historical facts of how in the historical accounts of the nation it was still persecution for those that choose to worship on their own.

That is what prompted the religious freedom to become an issue.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
anyway, i'd have to say something...ol' george wasn't really a founding father

What! That's Blasphemy!

Ya know they wanted to make the position of president more like a king. No, good old George wouldn't have it. He politely resigned after two terms setting the standard for all future presidents. You can thank him that George Bush doesn't get another term. In fact we may not have the Constitution if not for George Washington. Not a founding father? Indeed!

Father of His Country

Washington was the most revered man in the United States. A lesser person might have used this power to establish a military dictatorship or to become king.

He was a leading influence in persuading the states to participate in the Constitutional Convention, over which he presided, and he used his immense prestige to help gain ratification of its product, the Constitution of the United States.

The famous tribute by General Henry Lee, “first in war, first in peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen,” accurately reflected the emotions that Washington’s death aroused. Later generations have crowned this tribute with the simple title “Father of His Country.”

encarta.msn.com...

I think there's a real effort here to throw off the public perception of our founding father's and the extent of their faith. It's easy, by the content of their quotes to say, "Hey these guys were anything BUT Christian!" But there should by NO DOUBT as to whether or not these fine men were religious. I've seen dozens of quotes as reference of their "anti-christianity" but before you run off thinking these men were heathens, read this:

WHEREAS, It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor;

WHEREAS, Both the houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me "to recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted' for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have show kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

--George Washington - October 3, 1789

I'll put this up against any number of quotes (especially those pulled from the Treaty of Tripoli) trying to prove our founding fathers were a bunch of sloven, unibrowed, heathens

reply to post by Toelint


None of my quoting was intended to purvey the message you seem to think they were intended for. I was merely trying to show that those who were quoted were extremely critical of Christian dogmas. I think it somewhat narrow-minded to assume that just because someone calls another person anything but Christian means that we're calling them a "heathen". To me what your post suggested was that either you think anyone who's not Christian is a heathen, or you've grossly stereotyped those of us who are critical of Christianity as being tactless. It should be noted that the Founding Fathers' beliefs in God are not in question here, just their beliefs in the Christian ideologies.

reply to post by an3rkist


Perhaps you missed My point. I can produce a dozem quotes proving Hitler was a GOOD Lutheran, and a dozen more proving Mussolini was a good Catholic...but where is the point of doing that? They were monsters not because of their religions but inspite them. IF the point of this thread was "Hey, these were good men inspite of the fact that they demounced church dogma", I'd applaud you. Instead, what we have here is four pages of "HEY-HEY-HEY...Did you hear?? The Founding Fathers were ANTICHRISTIAN!!"

Where were you expecting to go with this? Surely you knew somone might actually bring God, And our founding fathers intense belief in HIM to the table.

Originally posted by Toelint
reply to post by an3rkist

 

Perhaps you missed My point. I can produce a dozem quotes proving Hitler was a GOOD Lutheran, and a dozen more proving Mussolini was a good Catholic...but where is the point of doing that? They were monsters not because of their religions but inspite them. IF the point of this thread was "Hey, these were good men inspite of the fact that they demounced church dogma", I'd applaud you. Instead, what we have here is four pages of "HEY-HEY-HEY...Did you hear?? The Founding Fathers were ANTICHRISTIAN!!"

Where were you expecting to go with this? Surely you knew somone might actually bring God, And our founding fathers intense belief in HIM to the table.

Nobody's debating the righteousness of the Founding Fathers here! The whole point in me contributing to this thread is to point out that some of them were critical of Christian dogma. If the words that they themselves used to explain that fact is not sufficient to prove that point, then I would ask you to give me something that proves it wrong.

There's quite a few people in the world who believe in God but are not Christian, so in answer to your last question I would have to say "No, I did not know someone was going to bring that up," considering this is about their beliefs regarding Christianity alone. Their beliefs in God are not in question, as was suggested by your last post, and neither is their righteousness, as suggested in this one. Their stand on Christianity is in question, and that's why I quoted them. And as I said, if their own words are not sufficient, please give me something that will sufficiently debunk the "theory" that some were critical of Christianity.

[edit on 8/3/08 by an3rkist]

I wouldn't say "anti-christian" just most definately very secular in their approach to design of governance. What's so hard to understand about this? Why do so many in the "faith" need history to be different?

Originally posted by jimbo999
The Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians Or Lovers Of The Bible...

For me this begs the question "then what were they?" The only alternative would seem to be members of the corporate serpent race.
However, I don't think so.

Christianity is not something you put on or take off. It is not a statement of intellectual assent. The term simply means "Christs ones". The term "Christ" simply meant "the annointed one" or in more practical terms the "heir apparent" to his fathers estate. Its not rocket science and there's nothing complicated about it. Accordingly "belonging to Christ" simply means those of common origin with the heir (brothers) through sharing the same original paternity. For example as the Christ said he was not ashamed to call them his brethren. Its the religious spin doctors who turn it into the witchcraft that passes for all embracing universalist intellectual christianity today.

A simple analogy would be that all agree to start with acceptance of the premise that the moon is made of cheese and then proceed to have a meaningful discussion about the features of that body. Obviously it could only be understood in terms relative to the properties of cheese. So it is with the term "christian" today. There is an assumed starting point definition of "christian" and all discussion proceeds from acceptance of the premise.
But the premise is quite flawed.

The cheese lovers go so far as to cut little bits out their favorite book and present it to themselves as perfect cheese.

So who knows if the Founding fathers were fraternal relatives of the kings son or not? What is known about them is that they had a rich and varied outlook on life. Some even made apparently contradictory statements on matters of personal faith over the span of their time in public office (as you do). They did their very best to provide foundations for a society which offered the least complication of the one they had left and maximised the possibilities for the individual for the future.

What we did with their legacy is for us to answer for.

reply to post by an3rkist


Your points are well taken. although Heaven forbid, in this arena, someone might title a thread, "Our Founding Fathers Were Infact, Intensly Religious, God-fearing and for the most part, life-long members of one religion or another."

Okay, that's a bit long.

Hey, let's retitle this thread and THEN see how many secularists chime in!

As a final note, Might I also suggest reading this: en.wikipedia.org...

(for anyone with questions as to just what Deism actually is.)




[edit on 10-3-2008 by Toelint]

I remembered listening to this same topic on Fresh Air with Terry Gross about the book Founding Faith by Steve Waldman.
very good show

Waldman discusses what was happening in the colonies before the revolution. The founders seemed to be in a very difficult position, because many colonists who came here to escape religious intolerance were religiously intolerant themselves. Jews, catholics, quakers, pagans and atheists were all persecuted in the early colonies. After the revolution many states still had their own religion and would not allow members of other religions to hold office.