Showing posts with label Founding Fathers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Founding Fathers. Show all posts

April 16, 2012

A little something for everyone

Einer Elhauge is a professor at Harvard Law School. He joined an amicus brief supporting the much maligned constitutionality of the individual mandate contained in the Affordable Care Act. In a piece penned for the most recent issue of The New Republic Elhauge

If Health Insurance Mandates Are Unconstitutional, Why Did the Founding Fathers Back Them?

The so called defenders of our Constitution, in argument before SCOTUS and without any supporting text or historical evidence, made a legal case against the Act’s individual mandate. The rhetoric from the right ranting against the mandate falsely claims that the framers of our Constitution would certainly have found such a measure to be unconstitutional.  They argue that nothing exists supporting this claim because a constitutional ban on purchase mandates was too “obvious” to mention. They base the claim that purchase mandates are unprecedented. Not so, says Elhauge…

In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.

Congress did not stop there, says Elhauge, because six years later…

And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

Yes, I know Adams was not one of the founders. The editors correct this at the end of the article.

Elhauge next offers a little positive territory for conservatives, albeit still damaging to their effort to kill President Obama’s benchmark legislation.

…in 1792 Congress, including 17 framers, passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington.

The lesson we should learn from this piece is just how ignorant the average American has become regarding the history of our country, our Founders and the framers of our Constitution. Attempts to derail this legislation is every bit as misdirected as are Liberal efforts to twist the Second Amendment in justification of anti-gun legislation.

The ACA is a bastard bill only because of its wealth of compromises made necessary by right wing resistance. It can be improved and should be. So called “socialized” medicine works well in countries as varied as Cuba and Canada, Russia and Finland, Germany and Spain. Our own healthcare system contains examples of “social” healthcare. Consider the Veterans Administration and the TRICARE insurance program, not to mention Medicare.

Our Constitution does not prohibit either the employer or the individual mandates contained within the ACA. A simple study of Congressional activity debunks that concept as effectively as it debunks the anti-gun arguments.

If these mandates or the entire bill do not pass SCOTUS muster we should go back to the drawing board and as a nation cobble a bill that works. Of course this would require the Congress learn to conduct itself somewhere north of the kindergarten level.

Good luck with that.
###

March 29, 2011

Why America is no longer exceptional


This is one of the more damning reports I believe I’ve ever read.

“81 percent of seniors from our top fifty-five colleges and universities failed a test of basic U.S. history questions drawn from a national exam designed for high school seniors.  Only 22 percent knew, for example, that the words “government of the people, by the people, for the people” came from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address.  If most American youngsters don’t learn about their nation’s history in the K-12 years, they are unlikely ever to learn about it.”

From a History News Network article. Read the whole story HERE.

The sad part about this is we don’t seem to ever learn that putting dogmatists in charge of educational content contributes to the decline of understanding and knowledge. Judging from recent ballot victories, this might be just what the majority of Americans want.

The discussion in this report is about history, but social studies and science are also under dogmatist attack. Witness a recent opinion piece in Forbes, another in the Palm Beach Post, and some of the work coming from the Texas SBOE.

I'm sorry. The people who vote Republican want conservative, but that is not what they are getting. The Republican party long ago married itself to the "social" conservatives, and those now make up the vast majority of the biggoted dogmatists who have floated to the top of the right wingnut cesspool.

I'm all in favor of fiscal conservatism, but that goal will remain unachievable so long as these science deniers and historical revisionists remain in power. Their brand of "conservatism" more resembles the dream of the Taliban than that of the Founders of our nation. 

###

January 12, 2011

Reflections on laws limiting the WBC

Slightly conflicting comments to my previous post caused me to stop and think. By the way I wrote the post the reader likely gets the idea that I am in favor of the State of Arizona’s move to enact laws limiting 1A rights for the pathetic fools of the Westboro Baptist Church. To a large degree that is correct, but from another, very libertarian perspective, perhaps not.

In her comment, MiniKat states:

”I find the idea of states enacting legislation to limit WBC's protesting both good and disturbing.

Good on the hand that they're a bunch of ignominious clods that really need a reality check. Also good that it's an example of state's rights. Disturbing on the other hand that worries about First Amendment rights."

Kat is correct that the state enacting laws limiting enumerated rights is an endeavor fraught with peril. However, individual rights do not, and should never trump the common good.

Although there is no discernable difference today, three of the original 13 colonies were chartered as commonwealths. The term ”Commonwealth”, or ”Commonweal” literally means common good.

John Adams, writing in the preamble to the Constitution for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, provided that the body politic (the state) should provide for the citizens ”the power of enjoying, in safety and tranquility, their natural rights and the blessings of life.” Adams further describes the body politic as a "social compact" in which the people agree to be governed by laws designed for the "common good."

The Massachusetts Constitution was the first document of its sort ever written, and was used as the basis for the U.S. Constitution. Our founders recognized that there would be instances where the State must enact laws placing limits on individual rights with the intent of providing for the common good. As Adams wrote, "the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity, and happiness."

Shouting "FIRE" in a crowded theatre is a violation of law; so should be the taunting and tormenting of grieving families.
###

December 31, 2010

Majority rule

We’ve had several discussions in this space regarding the Christian majority in our country, and of the efforts expended by activists asserting that majority into the public realm. These efforts range from religious displays in public buildings; religious slogans on our currency and modifications to our Pledge of Allegiance; a fabricated “War on Christmas” leading to boycotts of businesses for the "sin" of inclusiveness; to the attempts at mind control by school textbook review committees.

It is the protections our Founders wrote into our Constitution that prevent the activists within the Christian majority, or any majority, from running roughshod over the rest of us.

There is a very strong reason that our Founders placed such importance on protecting the minority from the will of the majority. They had personal experience with religious persecution and were determined that it would never happen in the United States. Other countries are not so fortunate, and the minority is paying the price. We should learn a lesson from this.

###

December 6, 2010

Religious Right Refudiated

Adullam Films
Filmmaker Christian Pinto, ironically, is an evangelical Christian. He is also the founder and owner of Adullam Films, which has produced several films promoting the Biblical point of view. Interestingly, he has recently produced a documentary refuting the Religious Right's Christian nation claims.

The three-hour DVD, The Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers, includes details of the early contributions of Thomas Paine in the formation of this republic. The film provides documentary evidence that our Constitution’s call for separation of religion and government is exactly as Thomas Jefferson describes.

Pinto also shows that the lies and distortions offered by David Barton and his ilk are nothing other than a covert effort at subversion of our founder’s and our Constitution’s intent.

Thomas Paine was the foremost promoter of Deism in his time, doing more to promote that philosophy than anyone in history. Pinto quotes from Paine's most important works, Common Sense, and The Age of Reason, demonstrating beyond doubt that Paine was far from Christian. Pinto further draws direct lines tying Paine's influence to the Revolutionary War, and to our Founders, most of whom were also Deists.

The latter parts of the documentary provides good resource for those desiring to challenge the religious right’s attempts at historical revisionism, showing it to be a complete subversion of our Constitution, and that the attempts at creating a Christian theocracy are based upon lies. In this part of the film Mr. Pinto points an accusing finger specifically to WallBuilders founder, David Barton.

Barton is well known for distorting American history and misleading Americans with his revisionism. The WallBuilders website is rife with distortion and outright lies. In this film, Barton's assertions that our Founders were Christian, and that our republic was built on Biblical principle, is roundly debunked. This documentary goes further, doing a good job of showing how the neocon lies pose a real danger to our freedoms, our country, and threaten our Constitution.

In many ways the documentary is quite good, but certainly not perfect. While Pinto cites Thomas Paine's works, revealing his Deistic beliefs and detailing Paine's influence on our Declaration of Independence, his Christian evangelical bias against Paine’s Deism are obvious. As an example, Pinto unnecessarily cites age-old and unproven gossip implicating Paine as participating in a ménage à trois with a French friend and his wife. This adds nothing to the conversation and serves only as a distraction.

More so than Deism Pinto focuses on the influence of Freemasonry on our Founders. Both Paine and Jefferson were undeniably Deists, but neither were Freemasons. Pinto offers no evidence, yet speculates that they may have been. Inversely, Freemasons George Washington and Ben Franklin were also Deists, and Pinto documents these facts quite well.

More speculation presented by Pinto is that Benjamin Franklin, while living in London, may have been involved in Satanic sacrifice while a member of The Hellfire Club. The Hellfire Club was little more than a 16th century swinger's club that spent more time conduct orgies and mocking traditional religion than conducting satanic rituals. While it is documented that Franklin was a member and undoubtedly participated in the debauchery, there is nothing more than speculation linking him to the rumored sacrifice ceremonies.

You probably shouldn’t expect that an evangelical Christian would produce a film without some attempt to proselytize. Pinto does not disappoint, but oddly enough the proselytizing is done in a way that seems to fit in with the documentary and can easily be overlooked.

In spite of Pinto’s Christian bias this documentary is well worth the $30.00 price tag. The producer has compiled an impressive arsenal of resources for Americans and true constitutionalists in their quest to keep our nation true to our founding roots.


The film trailer is on YouTube.


###

September 8, 2010

The politics of fear and loathing

Religionistas: Islamophobia and Christophobia

On August 24, 2010, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press released the results of a recent opinion survey. 35% of Americans believe Islam encourages violence to a greater degree than other religions. Eight years ago, only months after the attacks of September 11, 2001 that figure stood at 25%.

45% offer the opposing opinion, saying that Islam does not encourage more violence than other religions, while 24% have no opinion.  The survey also revealed that 38% of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of Islam, compared to just 30% with a favorable view and 32% with no opinion. Recent events, small and large, have put this fear and the reaction to it on front-page display.

A taxi driver in Manhattan was savagely attacked merely because the assailant believed him to be Muslim. A proposed expansion of an Islamic center located a couple blocks away from the World Trade Center site causes volcanic levels of hysteria in the right-wing media and blogosphere. A nut-job minister in Gainesville, FL and about 50 of his followers grabs center stage by threatening to burn copies of the Quran. In Tennessee, federal investigators believe arsonists torched construction equipment at the site of a future mosque in Murfreesboro. In New York State, a Muslim community in Waterport has been targeted and harassed by teenagers.

Politicians, pundits and preachers are fanning the flames of Islamophobia, repeatedly insisting that all of Islam be responsible for the actions of a handful of extremists. Inversely, across the pond, Christians are feeling the brunt of similar fear and loathing, stoked mostly by radical Islamic clerics, religious extremists and leftist politicians.

In Muslim countries practicing Sharia law, discrimination against Christians and Jews is not just practiced, it is codified into law.  Egypt is one of the more secular and moderate of the Muslim countries with a sizable religious minority of Coptic Christians, yet Egyptian law stipulates that a "Muslim man may marry a Christian woman but the opposite is forbidden; and if a Muslim woman does marry a Christian man, both the husband and the wife would be considered adulterers". 

However, it is not only the Muslim countries where we find anti-Christian sentiment. Christophobia is rampant across Northern Europe and England, and in Israel the sentiment is strong.

In May of 2007 a Baptist church in Brighton, England, was invaded by anti-Christian squatters who promptly wrecked the place with garbage and graffiti. In May of 2008, the mayor of a small city near Tel Aviv ordered hundreds of New Testaments confiscated from his citizens. These were later burned. Since the early 90’s, nine Christian churches have been burned in Norway.

In 2009 a Vienna, Austria based security organization issued a report confirming that Christophobia has become not only wide-spread, but perfectly acceptable in Asia, Africa and Europe, much as Islamophobia has become perfectly acceptable in America, Germany, the Netherlands and Great Brittan.  

The struggle isn’t new. Along with Judaism, these philosophies have been doing battle on one front or another for thousands of years, locked in an ongoing struggle for control of the Western World. The holy books of each of these commands adherents to engage the infidels, and to establish nations under Islamic law/Biblical law/The Law of Moses… whatever.

It is all nonsense.

Some 235 years ago a group of wise men recognized the futility of these millennial struggles and, seeking to create a more perfect union, devised a political system outside of any religious law. The framers of our Constitution and the Founders of our republic crafted a constitution that specifically excluded religion of any stripe. The only language in our Constitution that even mentions religion is exclusionary.

Article VI Paragraph 3 of our Constitution states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” Then there are the two First Amendment clauses commonly known as the "religion clauses" are the Establishment Clause, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," and the Free Exercise Clause "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Now, after all these years, we find Christian extremists twisting the words of our Founders in an attempt to circumvent the Establishment Clause, promoting the myth that America was created as a Christian nation, while viral political rhetoric has created a de facto religious test for public office. In the process they are attempting to backdoor Biblical law and, with the help of FOX News and the right wingnut blogosphere, establish the accepted discrimination of Muslims and others who are not “like us.”

The 6,000 year-old struggle progresses unabated while fear and loathing stokes the flames of hatred and violence. One of these days we may discover, perhaps too late, that religion in any form is corrosive to peace and individual freedom.

Thomas Jefferson was a visionary.
~~

April 9, 2010

The Myth, part IV

Conclusion. Continued from The Myth, Part III

Up until now I’ve concentrated on the Deists, but there were Christians involved in the shaping of our nation. Their influence was muted compared to the ideological contributions of Jefferson, Madison and Adams, who pressed for, and gained popular approval for the formation of a secular nation.

Historian Clinton Rossiter had this to say about the composition of the delegates to the Constitutional Convention and their religious views:

“[T]he gathering at Philadelphia was largely made up of men in whom the old fires were under control or had even flickered out. Most were nominally members of one of the traditional churches in their part of the country--the New Englanders Congregationalists, and Presbyterians, the Southerners Episcopalians, and the men of the Middle States everything from backsliding Quakers to stubborn Catholics--and most were men who could take their religion or leave it along. Although no one in this sober gathering would have dreamed of invoking the Goddess of Reason, neither would anyone have dared to proclaim that his opinions had the support of the God of Abraham and Paul. The Convention of 1787 was highly rationalist and even secular in spirit.[i]

At the constitutional convention, Luther Martin, a representative from Maryland, wanted to include Christian language, saying that "it would be at least decent to hold out some distinction between the professors of Christianity and downright infidelity or paganism." This proposal was rejected.[ii]

Our constitution was drafted as a secular document with no mention of God anywhere in it. There is only one mention of religion, and that is in the negative. "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Consider then, if the delegates had intended to establish our country as a "Christian nation,as is claimed by Don McLeroy and so many of his ilk, why would they have inserted a statement like that in and not refer to religion anywhere else?

One would think, considering the weight of evidence, that reasonably intelligent grownups would be able to decipher that if the intention of was anything except the formation of a "Christian nation." If they had intended such, wouldn’t the document they authored have some references to the Bible, Jesus, or anything alluding to the Christian religion? Instead of expressly forbidding a religious test as a condition for holding public office, would they not have required some form of sworn allegiance to Christianity? Were our founders so clueless that they wrote a constitution that ENTIRELY FAILS to mention Christ or the Bible, when their true purpose was to create a “Christian nation?” How can there be any doubt that our founders of intended no such thing?

As further evidence, let us look at a document written during the administration of George Washington – The Treaty with Tripoli. Article 11 of the Treaty makes the fact that this country was not, and was not intended to be a “Christian nation,” specifically stating that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..."[iii]

The treaty was negotiated by Joel Barlow, approved by George Washington while he was in office, and ratified by the senate under John Adams administration. As Adams signed the treaty, he added this statement: "Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof."

The statement that the United States was not “founded on the Christian religion” was approved by the first two Presidents and the entirety of the Senate should dispel any and all doubts that our founders intended to create a “Christian nation,” or that there was any intent to do so.

Reason 1 – Superstition 0. Game over… or is it?

So what might be the last refuge for the fundamentalists? The logical inductive fallacy, of course.

Premise #1 – If most Americans are Christian, then America is a Christian nation.
Premise #2 – Most Americans are Christian.
Conclusion – America has always been a Christian nation.

Fundamentalists still argue that even if our founders did not purposefully establish our country as a Christian nation, our country was founded by people looking for religious liberty, and our population has always been overwhelmingly Christian, so therefore we are a Christian nation.

These are dubious assumptions. There certainly were colonists fleeing religious persecution in the old world, but history shows these very colonists established theocratic colonies as oppressive or more so than that which they fled. Heretical Quakers were exiled from the colony, and executed if they returned. So called "witches" were condemned and burned on the stake or hanged on questionable evidence. Do modern fundamentalists want a return to that kind of “Christian nation”?

The majority of the colonists were capitalists, driven by the desire for free land and profit. Monetary motives played heavily in their decision to venture into a new world. They very simply wanted to improve their economic status.

Our founders were learned men. Most colonists were peasants. So what about the religious beliefs of the general population? It certainly wasn’t as “Christian” as the fundamentalists would like you to believe – a fact that rational conservatives admit. As noted by Richard Hofstadter, some 90% of colonial Americans were “unchurched in 1790,” that "mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom," and noted that "in 1800 [only] about one of every fifteen Americans was a church member."[iv]

Yet another historian, James MacGregor Burns, states that "[t]here had been a `very wintry season' for religion every where in America after the Revolution," and adds that "ninety percent of the people lay outside the churches."[v]

Scientists and historians deal with facts. Theocrats and fundamentalists play with myth. Fact paints an entirely different picture of colonial America in our formative years than the image Don McLeroy, Wendy Lowe and the rest of the gang of revisionists wish you to believe. America was not founded on "biblical principles," and Thomas Jefferson was foremost of the enlightenment philosophers – regardless of what the dogmatists on the Texas State Board of Education wishes our children to believe.

We were formed as a religiously neutral nation, and the Christian assault on that freedom has never ceased. The Fundamentalists are winning, but the voices of reason refuse to surrender.

The church has striven to retard the growth of knowledge and reason since the origin of recorded history. Copernicus, Bruno, Galileo, and a host of others have been denied, silenced or murdered in the name of dogma. Our founders were intent on reversing that trend.

Christian nation? Founded on Christian principles? I think not. But compare the historian’s view of the religious beliefs of the constitutional delegates with the radically different picture currently being painted by the fundamentalist members of the Texas State Board of Education. The board, dominated by fundamentalist, right wing, revisionist, theocrats, has unfortunately found the political leverage required to flush truth down the toilet, rewriting recorded history with superstition, fantasy and lies.

The textbook issue is in my part of the world so I have made it my battle. The world is laughing at us, and Texas has become the punch line of editorial cartoons. There are intelligent, reasonable people in Texas, and we’re tired of this crap. We’re fighting back.

You can join me if you want, by visiting the following sites and joining the cause. We’d appreciate any help you can offer. Donations gladly accepted.



P.S. If you still believe that America was founded as a "Christian nation," you're reading the wrong blog.
~~


[i] Rossiter, C., 1787: The Grand Convention, W. W. Norton & Company
[ii] Kurkland, P. Lerner, R, The Founders’ Constitution, University of Chicago Press
[iii] Miller, H., Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed., Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office
[iv] Hofstadter, R., Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, Alfred A. Knopf Publishing
[v] Burns, J.M., The American Experiment - Vineyard of Liberty, Vol. 1, Vintage Books
~~

April 8, 2010

The Myth, part III


Thomas Jefferson received a great deal of coverage in Parts I and II, and for good reason. The gentleman from Virginia is the most published of our founders, and his influence on the formation of our constitutional republic was profound. There is just too much proof of Jefferson's resistance to any religious influence in our constitution to be denied.

It is for this reason the Texas State Board of Education wishes to omit Jefferson from Texas public school curriculum. Theocrats cannot weave the deception necessary to convince children that our country is a "Christian nation" so long as the truth about Jefferson stands in the way.

The assault on religious liberty is ever-present in this country, and began almost a century before the colonies split from King George. Jefferson's resistance, and Madison's as well, are documented fact. So what of the others? Where is truth to be found? In this missive I shall discuss one of them in depth; General George Washington.

We know that some religious sects fled persecution in the old world only to construct oppressive religious-based colonies in America. The Massachusetts Bay Colony was established by Puritans, Pennsylvania by Quakers, Maryland by Roman Catholics, while the southern states were somewhat Episcopalian. Some established severe laws indistinguishable from those they abhorred in their former homes.

As our founders debated the verbiage of our constitution, fundamentalists worked to influence the process and hoped to couch the language of the document in religious terms. Our founders, cognizant of the history of religious repression, consistently rejected this notion. The attempts to insert Christianity into our government existed in those times, and have never ceased. When George Washington died, the response from the religious crowd was immediate.

The legacy of our first President came under assault by Christians intent on claiming him as one of their own immediately upon his 1799 death. Proving Washington to be a religionist would have been a huge feather in their cap. This effort was based largely on the grounds that Washington had regularly attended services with his wife at an Episcopal Church, and had served as a vestryman in the church.

On August 13, 1835, a Christian activist by the name of “Colonel Mercer” wrote to Bishop William White, who had been one of the rectors at the church Washington had attended. In the letter, Mercer asked if "Washington was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal Church, or whether he occasionally went to the communion only, or if ever he did so at all..."[i]

White replied two days later, that, “In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant.... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you.”[ii]

In his Annals of the American Pulpit, The Rev. William B. Sprague wrote a biographical sketch of James Abercrombie, the other pastor of the church Washington attended. Sprague quoted Abercrombie as confirming White's reply to Mercer.

One incident in Dr. Abercrombie's experience is especially worthy of record; In an 1831 letter by Abercrombie written to a friend, he pens: "With respect to the inquiry you make I can only state the following facts; that, as pastor of the Episcopal church, observing that, on sacramental Sundays, Gen. Washington, immediately after the desk and pulpit services, went out with the greater part of the congregation--always leaving Mrs. Washington with the other communicants--she invariably being one--I considered it my duty in a sermon on Public Worship, to state the unhappy tendency of example, particularly of those in elevated stations who uniformly turned their backs upon the celebration of the Lord's Supper. I acknowledge the remark was intended for the President; and as such he received it."[iii]

Abercrombie further explained that he had heard through a senator that Washington had discussed this reprimand with others, and had told them that "as he had never been a communicant, were he to become one then it would be imputed to an ostentatious display of religious zeal, arising altogether from his elevated station.”[iv]

Abercrombie then said that Washington "never afterwards came on the morning of sacramental Sunday."[v] Reverend Abercrombie's stated pointedly, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."[vi]

Writing in the Episcopal Recorder, E.D. Neill refuted the Christian revisionists, stating that Washington "was not a communicant, notwithstanding all the pretty stories to the contrary, and after the close of the sermon on sacramental Sundays, [he] had fallen into the habit of retiring from the church while his wife remained and communed."[vii]

It is apparently true that Washington, for several years, served as a vestryman, as had his father before him. The vestry at that time was also the county court, so in order to have certain political powers, it was necessary for one to be a vestryman.

Thomas Jefferson was a vestryman for a while. This was no admission of faith. Bishop William Meade wrote in an 1857 letter, “Even Mr. Jefferson and [Mr.] Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence.”[viii]

The Rev. Bird Wilson was only a few years removed from being a contemporary of our founding fathers. In a sermon to his flock, Wilson stated that "the founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who had thus far been elected [Washington, John Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, John Quincy Adams, and Jackson] not a one had professed a belief in Christianity."

Wilson continued by saying, “When the war was over and the victory over our enemies won, and the blessings and happiness of liberty and peace were secured, the Constitution was framed and God was neglected. He was not merely forgotten. He was absolutely voted out of the Constitution.” (Emphasis mine).[ix]

Rev. Wilson, in an interview with a gentleman by the name of Owen, said "I have diligently perused every line that Washington ever gave to the public, and I do not find one expression in which he pledges him self as a believer in Christianity. I think anyone who will candidly do as I have done, will come to the conclusion that he was a Deist and nothing more."[x]

Finally, in 1987, Washington was profiled by historian Clinton Rossiter. Mr. Rossiter writes that, “The last and least skeptical of these rationalists [Washington] loaded his First Inaugural Address with appeals to the ‘Great Author,’ ‘Almighty Being,’ ‘invisible hand,’ and ‘benign parent of the human race,’ but apparently could not bring himself to speak the word ‘God’.”[xi]

Our second President, John Adams was a Unitarian who flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote, "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

In a letter to Samuel Miller on July 8, 1820, Adams expressed unbelief of Protestant Calvinism. "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."

In "A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], Adams wrote that "[T]he United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Later in the same document, Adams says, "[T]hirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."[xii]

In Part IV we shall discuss those among our founders who were Christians, and their contributions to our Constitutional Republic.

~~


[ii] IBID, p. 104
[iii] IBID, pp. 104-105
[iv] IBID, p. 105
[v] IBID, p. 105
[vi] IBID, p. 110
[vii] IBID, p. 107
[viii] Meade, W, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, 2 vols., Philadelphia, 1857, I, p. 191
[ix] Remsberg, p. 120
[x] IBID, pp. 121-122
[xi] Rossiter, C, 1787: The Grand Convention, WW. Norton & Co., 1987, p. 36
[xii] Sweeley, J.W., Rights, Liberties, and Social Justice: How America Lost Its Moral Authority, Blue Dolphin Publishing
~~