Lewis K-
That whole essay is an exercise in historical revisionism.
The Founding Fathers looked to people and institutions like John Locke, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, The Ancient Roman Government, Greek philosophers like Plato, Voltaire, Spinoza, Adam Smith, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, the Spartan government (the first true system with checks and balances).
It was influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, chief among them natural law, Deism, and the concept of self-determination.
If you want to read a piece that was highly influential on the Founding Fathers, which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution mirror, read John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government.
If the Enlightenment taught us and the Founding Fathers anything, it was that individuals do not need the Church to help them understand moral concepts. And that religious institutions need not be the ultimate arbiters of society.
Please read up on your ancient governments.
Not to mention, if this were to be a Christian state, then why didn't the founding fathers write "We the Christian people" instead of "We the people"?
Jefferson and Madison, amongst others, were weary of the mingling of religion and the affairs of government. In writing the Constitution (of which Madison was the prime architect), they looked to Holland because of its respect of all religious sects and lack of an established religion:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... ons66.html
Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were also impressed with the government of Holland.
This has to be the most inept study I have ever heard of.
One can be moral and not be Christian. One can be moral and not be religious. They are not mutually exclusive. Any attempts to convince people otherwise is disingenuous and flat-out false.
http://www.members.tripod.com/candst/tn ... morial.htm
Many people I have met came from private religious schools, and they are just as disfunctional as the rest of humanity.
And man can be virtuous, righteous and good whether he is religious or not. You can raise a child to be moral without the influence of religion. We see it all the time.
That whole essay is an exercise in historical revisionism.
The Founding Fathers were influenced by the Enlightenment, and rational thought in particular. Many of the basic ideas we see in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution were borrowed from policitical, social and economic philosophers, as well as past governments. God was an influence, but not the only influence.
The Founding Fathers looked to people and institutions like John Locke, Aristotle, Thomas Hobbes, The Ancient Roman Government, Greek philosophers like Plato, Voltaire, Spinoza, Adam Smith, Jean-Jacque Rousseau, the Spartan government (the first true system with checks and balances).
It was influenced by the ideas of the Enlightenment, chief among them natural law, Deism, and the concept of self-determination.
If you want to read a piece that was highly influential on the Founding Fathers, which the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution mirror, read John Locke's 2nd Treatise on Government.
Religion, in general, should not be legislated. This is the point. It is not a matter of being bigoted against Christianity. It is about guarding the government from one particular, dominant religious worldview.
Morality can be upheld without religious ideology. We innately know what is moral and what is not. Morality existed long before the rise of Christianity.
By this do you mean that students were required to study the Bible? This is not the province of the government, but that of the church.
Which states? The Southern states?
History has shown us that many people and nations can operate from a proper moral base. The idea that this is an impossibility is patently absurd.
Then there is no need for religious ideology in the state.
No, it is not absolutely necessary.
If the Enlightenment taught us and the Founding Fathers anything, it was that individuals do not need the Church to help them understand moral concepts. And that religious institutions need not be the ultimate arbiters of society.
Indeed. So, how then do you rationalize the fundamentalist Christian attempts to rule American society through their immovable worldview?
Servant of the people, not of religion.
Indeed, instead of religion governing the people.
This view is also held by a great number of political, social and economic philosophers going back to at least the time of the Greeks.
This country was modeled after both the Spartan and Roman governments, which were both Republics, and very successful Republics. And neither of these governments were Jewish or Christian governments.
Please read up on your ancient governments.
If this were to be a Christian nation, then there would have been an Amendment establishing the United States as a Christian state. There was not. The 1st Amendment guards against any attempts of establishing a state religion. This is non-negotiable, and not subject to historical revisionism.
Not to mention, if this were to be a Christian state, then why didn't the founding fathers write "We the Christian people" instead of "We the people"?
Jefferson and Madison, amongst others, were weary of the mingling of religion and the affairs of government. In writing the Constitution (of which Madison was the prime architect), they looked to Holland because of its respect of all religious sects and lack of an established religion:
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders ... ons66.html
Benjamin Franklin and John Adams were also impressed with the government of Holland.
Assuming this study has merit, the figure is only 34%; not sufficient enough to justify, in my mind, that the founding fathers favored a Christian state. More importantly, though, one can make mention of the Bible as a philosophical document without then supporting the creation of a religious state. This is no smoking gun, as you would have us think.
Who were the authors of this political material? This is inconclusive evidence.
Who are 'they,' and where are these quotes and references? There is no way that 94% of all quotes regarding the political climate preceding, and subesquent to, the revolution and writing of the Constitution have their basis in the Bible.
This has to be the most inept study I have ever heard of.
No, the Founding Fathers looked to governments like those of ancient Sparta and Rome. Read up on them, please.
Again, I direct you to Sparta and Rome. The Bible says nothing of the preferred methods of government organization. This is merely a weak attempt at attributing the three branches of government to Christian theology.
These laws are found in many different non-Christian societies. Just because the U.S. government wrote a law against murder, does not mean that it was because of the Bible. This logic is so reaching and preposterous that it is truly laughable. And what is more, it denies that people have common sense enough to write laws prohibiting murder or theft.
One can be moral and not be Christian. One can be moral and not be religious. They are not mutually exclusive. Any attempts to convince people otherwise is disingenuous and flat-out false.
9 of the 55 delegates is considered far-ranging. Madison is the principle architect of the Constitution, and was opposed to a nation where religion and politics were inseparable.
http://www.members.tripod.com/candst/tn ... morial.htm
Correlation does not equal causality, my friend. You cannot logically prove that the rise in any of the aforementioned issues is directly attributable to Bible not being allowed in private schools.
Many people I have met came from private religious schools, and they are just as disfunctional as the rest of humanity.
Man can be atrocious, violent or immoral whether he is religious or not. We have seen this all throughout history, and even in the Bible.
And man can be virtuous, righteous and good whether he is religious or not. You can raise a child to be moral without the influence of religion. We see it all the time.
