Elk County Forum

You Might Be A Constitutionalist If . . .
by Chuck Baldwin

I originally published this column back in January of 2005. Since then (and especially lately), many people have called and written with requests to republish it. So, with a few minor revisions, here it is.

More than thirty years as a student of American history, constitutional government, and the Holy Bible leads me to the conviction that the two major political parties in this country (at the national level) are equally culpable in stripping America of its founding principles. In my opinion, both the Democrat and Republican parties in Washington, D.C., have zero fidelity to the U.S. Constitution and zero respect for America's foundational precepts.

In my studied opinion, neither the Democrat nor Republican Party (at the national level) has any intention of slowing the out-of-control expansion of government. Neither party has demonstrated any loyalty to preserving and protecting our constitutional form of government.

Like National Socialists and Soviet Socialists of old, the only thing that concerns Democrats and Republicans today is who is in power. Both are equally willing to destroy the freedoms and liberties of people without conscience or regret as long as their party remains in control.

I am absolutely convinced that without a renewed allegiance to constitutional government and State sovereignty, there can be no resolution to America's current slide into socialism and oppression. Therefore, it is critical that we cast aside our infatuation with partisan politics and steadfastly stand firm for the principles of federalism and freedom, as did America's founders.

Might you be a modern-day Minuteman who understands the principles of freedom and federalism? I offer the following test. Read it and see if you, too, are a Constitutionalist. (Yes, Martha, this is another Jeff Foxworthy spin-off.)

rest of the article:

http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2009/cbarchive_20091020.html

I got 33/36

I bet thats more than a lot of our "conservative" posters....

Guess again anmar.  35/36. 

So exactly how many can you disagree with and still be a Constitutionist?

Quote from: Varmit on October 29, 2009, 05:14:18 PM
Guess again anmar.  35/36. 

Wow billy, so you are against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?

I'm actually 36/36, though may be one or two I waver on, but for the most part am and am a member of the Constitution party, though I don't usually vote that way.  Here's their link:
http://www.constitutionparty.com/ (http://www.constitutionparty.com/)

So, I guess I beat all of you.   ;D

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............34 out of 36....kinda iffy on two............

Quote from: pamsback on October 29, 2009, 09:30:18 PM
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm............34 out of 36....kinda iffy on two............

the religion ones?

I'm still trying to figure out how someone who is pro war got a perfect score.  Being in favor of the wars contradicts 3 or 4 of the questions.

yeah other than guaranteeing EVERYBODY the right to practice.....think they should just stay out of it.

No, I am not against the iraq or afghan wars.  As Commander-in-Chief the President has the authority to defend the nation and take military action without the consent of congress or a declaration of war.  Article 2 Section 2. 

Are you sure you're a Constitionalist, Billy.

That's not the party line:

"We condemn the presidential assumption of authority to deploy American troops into combat without a declaration of war by Congress, pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution."

Billy, i don't think you're being honest with yourself....

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people's liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.

You support torture

18. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops should never serve under foreign commanders or wear the uniform or insignia of the United Nations, and that they must never submit to illegal orders, such as turning their weapons against American citizens, or confiscating the guns of U.S. citizens.

Half our force in Afghanistan is there under the control of the United Nations as part of the International Security Assistance Force

32. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops are not the world's policemen, that they are not "nation-builders," and that their purpose is only to defend American lives and property, not to be the enforcement arm of international commercial interests or global elitists.

We are being the worlds policeman in Iraq.  We are nation building in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  And we invaded both countries for commercial interests.

35. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose sending billions of taxpayer dollars as foreign aid; the U.S. State Department meddling into the private affairs of foreign countries; and ubiquitous foreign entanglements that require vast sums of money, create animosity and hostility towards us, and expose us to foreign wars and conflicts in which we have no national interest.

Isreal is the largest recipient of foriegn aid, i believe you expresed support for this in a thread a few months back, correct me if i'm wrong.  Furthermore, we meddle, oh how we meddle in the private affairs of so many countries, iraq and afghanistan included.



I can't see how you found yourself agreeing with those principals.  I can tell you that whomever wrote this is a big fan of Ron Paul.  Paul is against the wars, he thinks we should pull out of both conflicts.  He thinks we shouldn't torture people.  We shouldn't give money or help to Isreal and we should stay out of the affairs of other countries.

QuotePaul is against the wars, he thinks we should pull out of both conflicts.  He thinks we shouldn't torture people.  We shouldn't give money or help to Isreal and we should stay out of the affairs of other countries.

All pretty good ideas.....only we CAN'T just quit unless we want to lose what standing we have left...never should of went to start with......Bush bit it off......now we HAVE to chew and SWALLOW. That or if we quit...quit PERIOD...just pack our shit, our soldiers, our money, our support, our equipment, our weapons, hand it off to em and let em sort it out themselves and PAY for it themselves, say you're on your own a**holes and don't listen to em whine about havin to do it themselves.

Quote from: pamsback on October 30, 2009, 01:17:51 PM
That or if we quit...quit PERIOD...just pack our shit, our soldiers, our money, our support, our equipment, our weapons, hand it off to em and let em sort it out themselves and PAY for it themselves, say you're on your own a**holes and don't listen to em whine about havin to do it themselves.

thats pretty much the idea.

wait isn't that what the former USSR did??  How did that turn out.  I am not for gut and run.  or cut and let them regroup.

I believe that the sum total of the questions determines the level of constitutionalist that you are.  Just because you don't agree with 2 or 3 of them doesn't make you a non constitutionalist.  I would say if your 50/50 your not a constitutionalist.  But 30 out of 36 would put you right up there.

Personally, we were attacked on 9/11, and war was declared on us.  We responded. thats well within the constitution.  Secondly giving israel allied support is not necessarily unconstitutional.  I believe we have a treaty with them and in it it spells out what we will do for them.  Treaties are constitutional.  Thats why we have to be careful of making stupid treaties like the koyoto treaty and the copenhagen one.

Quote from: Anmar on October 30, 2009, 11:20:06 AM
Billy, i don't think you're being honest with yourself....

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people's liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.

You support torture

Okay genuis, do you really think that the founders meant for the constitution to apply to the entire world?  Of course they didn't, if they did then they would not have placed a monetary fee on people who wanted to become citizens.  We are not torturing American citizens, therefore there is no violation of the constitution.

Futhermore, the nation building you speak of is a part of the hearts and minds philosophy.  We did not invade for commercial reasons you idiot.  We went there because 3000 americans lost their lives in a cowardly attack against us, or have you forgotten that.

Just for the record, how is going after our enemies NOT defending american lives and property?

As for Isreal, you better believe I support them.  However if we were to cut off foregin aid to them then we would have (and should) cut off all aid to everybody else. 

Quote from: pamsback on October 30, 2009, 01:17:51 PM
...never should of went to start with......Bush bit it off......now we HAVE to chew and SWALLOW.

So we just let the attacks on 9/11, the USS Cole, the continued attempts of attack, go unanswered? 

Oooo name calling from the forum moderator. 

Who's the idiot here?  Do you really believe that Iraq and the Taliban attacked us?

I like how you claimed to score 35, then when you get called out on them, you suddenly change your views.  You claimed to be against nation building, now you're for it.  You claimed to reject foreign aid, now you are for it. 

As for torture and the constitution.  It says that men are given certain inalienable rights by God.  MEN, not AMERICAN CITIZENS.  I think you need to go back and read the constitution.  It doesn't say american citizen, it says no person, no man, etc etc. 

Giving Israel the kind of support we do was warned about by George Washington in his farewell speech.  No true patriot would be comfortable with the kind of relationship we have with Isreal.  They steal our tech and sell it to the chinese.  Warph posted a few weeks ago about how it was a normal practice and we all shouldn't really be alarmed.  How silly is that?  How crappy is it that the biggest and strongest lobby in washington is that of a foriegn country?  What the hell are we doing allowing a foreign country to meddle in our own political affairs?  I'm glad that you are OK with that because that only goes to show you either don't know whats going on, or that you don't really care.

I also find it amusing that on one post, you say you're laughing at me, then in another you start calling me names in an obviously malicous tone.  Are you confused about your feelings?  You sure are confused about many of your positions it seems.

Just standin' by..........................
(http://www.cascity.com/howard/animations/4.gif)

Hi teresa! how are you?  over your cold by now i hope

Yep.... fit as a fiddle.. and ready for Halloween tomorrow night.  :)
Then gone and off again ... then home for a few hours ..then gone again.. then home for a night.. then gone again for a week..
sighhhhh............... :-\  no rest for the wicked!

Is it time to change the straw in the broom yet? :angel:

Glad to hear it.

Hang it where the sun don't shine Flint..  ;D

and noooo my broom is making the rounds very well with the same straw that it has had for the past 3,000 miles..

(http://www.heathersanimations.com/witches/w12.gif)

Too bad Tabitha there isn't looking back at you in the mirror. :D  The flying monkeys look a little like the baby gator from Pearls Before Swine.  ;D 8)

Quote from: Varmit on October 30, 2009, 10:38:25 PM

Quote from: pamsback on October 30, 2009, 01:17:51 PM
...never should of went to start with......Bush bit it off......now we HAVE to chew and SWALLOW.

So we just let the attacks on 9/11, the USS Cole, the continued attempts of attack, go unanswered? 

No we don't we F*&^ em UP and come home..not blow some shit up....and then kiss their asses and build it back better than it was. The reason I ain't been talkin much is because I am dead ass tired of your attitudes and bullshit jumpin down throats if somebody expresses an ORIGINAL thought in here. Everybody in here is an AMerican.....we all don't have the same political reasoning although according to Reds test even us supposed "kumbyya singin liberal whatthef-evers" are just as much Constitutionalists as you "hard-core Americans " :P All your chest-thumpin, well I'll just blow the hell out of and kill em all .......when and if a fight comes...I'll have YOUR back...reckon I can trust you to have mine? Or are yall just mouth?

Quote from: Varmit on October 30, 2009, 09:53:38 PM

Okay genuis, do you really think that the founders meant for the constitution to apply to the entire world?  Of course they didn't, if they did then they would not have placed a monetary fee on people who wanted to become citizens.  We are not torturing American citizens, therefore there is no violation of the constitution.

No of course not. The constitution doesn't and has never applied to non citizens.

QuoteFuthermore, the nation building you speak of is a part of the hearts and minds philosophy.  We did not invade for commercial reasons you idiot.  We went there because 3000 americans lost their lives in a cowardly attack against us, or have you forgotten that.

True your right, we are there cause we were attacked first.  But you do realize what does separate us from the rest of the world and is a major part of our uniqueness and sets us apart from the rest of the world is that we don't go in and blow * up and leave.  We go in, blow * up and then after we get rid of the problem, we restore that country back to where it was before we blew it up and set it on a path to prosper on their own.  We did it with Germany, Japan, France, Italy in WW2, and we did it in Korean war with South Korea, and we have done it with Iraq, and will do it with Afghanistan once we remove the agressors. 
Is it our job technically?  No its not, to the victor go the spoils of war. But.... We are a nation that practices what we preach in that we don't tolerate agressors and we don't become the agressor and take things from folks.

QuoteJust for the record, how is going after our enemies NOT defending american lives and property?

It is defending our lives and property. 

QuoteAs for Isreal, you better believe I support them.  However if we were to cut off foregin aid to them then we would have (and should) cut off all aid to everybody else. 

Well, Its like this, we are nation founded under Gods principles, and Israel is God's chosen people. It stands to reason that we would support them especially when the world stands against them.  No one can stand against Gods nations and survive.

Quote from: Anmar on October 30, 2009, 10:52:31 PM
As for torture and the constitution.  It says that men are given certain inalienable rights by God.  MEN, not AMERICAN CITIZENS.  I think you need to go back and read the constitution.  It doesn't say american citizen, it says no person, no man, etc etc. 

HAAA!  Talk about confused.  You can't even get your documents straight.  Let me learn you something...

This is the Preamble to the Constitution:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Notice two things, it was written by Amreicans and established FOR AMERICANS.  Got that?

The document you are refering to when you talk about inalienable rights is the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,.."

I NEVER said that I supported nation building, I don't.  I don't know where you got your information on that one. 

As for Isreal being involved with us.  I don't have a problem with it because of my religious beliefs.  A right that is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Ok, so let me be clear about something, you don't mind another country having control of our government because its part of your religous beliefs?

Quote from: Varmit on October 31, 2009, 02:38:35 PM


The document you are refering to when you talk about inalienable rights is the Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,.."

He's got ya there anmar.  I personally consider the declaration and bill of rights all one document but when I did so you piped up and made damn sure to point out that their separate documents. :D

LOL

Quote from: Anmar on October 31, 2009, 03:35:03 PM
Ok, so let me be clear about something, you don't mind another country having control of our government because its part of your religous beliefs?

How does Israel control our government by receiving aid?   Uhmm does that mean Chevrolet, chrysler jp morgan, and all those folks that got a stimulus check control our government???

Quote from: srkruzich on October 31, 2009, 03:45:38 PM

Quote from: Anmar on October 31, 2009, 03:35:03 PM
Ok, so let me be clear about something, you don't mind another country having control of our government because its part of your religous beliefs?

How does Israel control our government by receiving aid?   Uhmm does that mean Chevrolet, chrysler jp morgan, and all those folks that got a stimulus check control our government???

read it again, you missed the part about lobbying

Anmar,  haven't you figured it out yet.

When the uber-right is right, they're right.

When the uber-right is wrong, they're still right.

When anyone else is wrong, they're wrong.

When anyone else is right, they're still wrong.

let me also add, he didnt "get me"  the constitution uses the same terminology, he just chose to ignore it.  I'm finding that Billy is one of those people who just picks and chooses from different (sometimes conflicting) ideas just because its convenient for him.  He claims that he's a strict follower of the constitution, but when you try to pin him down on exactly what that is, suddenly he's pulling out religous references to try and excuse his beliefs that are unconstituitional

Flint, I've figured it out.  Frankly, i'm not trying to convince them of anything.  What i want is for the people reading this who don't post to know where these people are really coming from.  Where their true interests are.

Quote from: Anmar on October 31, 2009, 03:52:28 PM


Flint, I've figured it out.  Frankly, i'm not trying to convince them of anything.  What i want is for the people reading this who don't post to know where these people are really coming from.  Where their true interests are.

Now what would that be?  Why is it that the ideals are so bad? 

Quote from: srkruzich on October 31, 2009, 04:14:15 PM

Quote from: Anmar on October 31, 2009, 03:52:28 PM


Flint, I've figured it out.  Frankly, i'm not trying to convince them of anything.  What i want is for the people reading this who don't post to know where these people are really coming from.  Where their true interests are.

Now what would that be?  Why is it that the ideals are so bad? 

I think when someone comes to these forums and claims that its his religous beliefs to allow another country to meddle in our affairs and influence our government/political system, that pretty much speaks for itself.  In fact, that sounds strangely similar to that Imam that was shot in detroit last week.

Lobbying doesn't mean controling, get your terminology straight.  Secondly, religous beliefs strongly influenced our founders and the writing of the Constitution.  I personaly believe that our gov't should be influenced by religious (specifically Christian) beliefs.

Also, I never claimed that Isreal had control of our gov't.  If it did do you think that our Isreali controlled gov't would have put pressure on Isreal to stop hostilities with palestine?  Or to soften their stance against iran? ...Didn't think so.

And for the record the Constitution and Declaration DO NOT use the same terminology.  One espouses that all men are created equal and should have certain rights, the other states that AMERICANs do in fact have those rights. 

Billy, you're staying right in there teaching 'em good stuff.

Quote from: Varmit on October 31, 2009, 04:46:29 PM
Lobbying doesn't mean controling, get your terminology straight.  Secondly, religous beliefs strongly influenced our founders and the writing of the Constitution.  I personaly believe that our gov't should be influenced by religious (specifically Christian) beliefs.

Also, I never claimed that Isreal had control of our gov't.  If it did do you think that our Isreali controlled gov't would have put pressure on Isreal to stop hostilities with palestine?  Or to soften their stance against iran? ...Didn't think so.

And for the record the Constitution and Declaration DO NOT use the same terminology.  One espouses that all men are created equal and should have certain rights, the other states that AMERICANs do in fact have those rights. 

Good post!!!  :)

One more thing Anmar..You say that we shouldn't allow another country to meddle in our affairs.  You've mentioned Isreali lobbyists, yet you haven't said a word about Mexico, Sudan, Palestine, or any other forgein country that has lobbists in D.C.  So I am curious, do we kick them all out?  And take an isolationist stance with our forgein policies?  Or just whittle down the numbers on Isreals side to level the playing field?

Yes, we kick out all foreign lobbyists.  The only people who should be participating in the American government are Americans.  Its sad to see that you of all people think otherwise.

Last time I checked the only people in our gov't were Americans. 

Quote from: Varmit on November 01, 2009, 11:51:38 AM
Last time I checked the only people in our gov't were Americans. 

Well, I'll be.  Billy just acknowledged that Obama IS an American!  WOW!

Easy there Flint. Varmit is allowed one mistake a day, although this one was a biggie.

oh, now you've stooped to playing with words.  Just admit it, foreign governments intervening in American politics is wrong.  No matter what religous beliefs you have towards Israel, they shouldn't be lobbying the way they are.  Neither should any foreign country.

Quote from: Varmit on October 31, 2009, 04:46:29 PM
And for the record the Constitution and Declaration DO NOT use the same terminology.  One espouses that all men are created equal and should have certain rights, the other states that AMERICANs do in fact have those rights. 

So, Billy, were the Founding Fathers more correct when they were writing from a liberal viewpoint (the Declaration of Independence) or from a conservative viewpoint (the Constitution).

Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 12:21:06 PM

Quote from: Varmit on October 31, 2009, 04:46:29 PM
And for the record the Constitution and Declaration DO NOT use the same terminology.  One espouses that all men are created equal and should have certain rights, the other states that AMERICANs do in fact have those rights. 

So, Billy, were the Founding Fathers more correct when they were writing from a liberal viewpoint (the Declaration of Independence) or from a conservative viewpoint (the Constitution).

When they were writing the declaration, from the "liberal" viewpoint, the liberals were the conservatives.  The bill of rights were the Rules of law neither consisting of liberal or conservative viewpoints.  Just the rule of law.  It is the law that sets the standards of all other laws, and is a document that is set in stone, should have been carved on concrete.  It is not a living document, subject to change at a whim.  The constitution is black and white not shades of gray.

Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 01:14:41 PM


When they were writing the declaration, from the "liberal" viewpoint, the liberals were the conservatives.  The bill of rights were the Rules of law neither consisting of liberal or conservative viewpoints.  Just the rule of law.  It is the law that sets the standards of all other laws, and is a document that is set in stone, should have been carved on concrete.  It is not a living document, subject to change at a whim.  The constitution is black and white not shades of gray.

Awesome, now tell me again where it says we should allow foreign lobbies?  Oh and I'm dying to see where it says that the US is a christian nation.

Quote from: Anmar on November 01, 2009, 01:30:33 PM

Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 01:14:41 PM


When they were writing the declaration, from the "liberal" viewpoint, the liberals were the conservatives.  The bill of rights were the Rules of law neither consisting of liberal or conservative viewpoints.  Just the rule of law.  It is the law that sets the standards of all other laws, and is a document that is set in stone, should have been carved on concrete.  It is not a living document, subject to change at a whim.  The constitution is black and white not shades of gray.

Awesome, now tell me again where it says we should allow foreign lobbies?  Oh and I'm dying to see where it says that the US is a christian nation.

The majority of the signers of the declaration who also participated in its creation, were devout christians who attended seminary.  To believe that their influence is not in the constitution is extreme naivety or just plain blindness.  Secondly Christianity was practiced in Government from its inception including prayer and sermons in congress, prayer in the whitehouse and schools and even bible verses, christian figures, christian principles on almost all Government buildings.  There aren't any muslim, mormon, hindu, buddist sayings and verses, but Christian.  Christianity is and was practiced openly and boldly in the streets as well as in the government offices.

IF this country was not founded on christian principles and IF our forefathers specifically crafted and created this constitution to prohibit the practice of said christianity then why did they partake of it? Why was it ok to pray and fast before making laws?  why was it acceptable to have sermons in congress before making laws.  WHY IS IT today that Congress still holds prayer meeting before making laws IF this country wasn't founded on christian principles.

Instead of reading all the atheistic appologetics, you might read a little of samuel adams works who documents how much christianity affected the development and creation of our nation.  IT wasn't by any other religious belief that this country was founded. 

This country was and still is a christian nation.  IF it weren't, We wouldn't be a nation any longer as God would have removed his hand of protection long ago.

RELIGIOUS LIBERALISM AND THE FOUNDING FATHERS

Nicholas F. Gier, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho

First published in Two Centuries of Philosophy in America,
Peter Caws, ed. (Oxford: Basil Blackwell Publishers, 1980), pp. 22-45. 
Additions made to section on John Adams, August, 2003
Additions made to George Washington, March & June, 2005

INTRODUCTION

    Many misconceptions abound concerning the relation of religious belief and the American Revolution. Some view the birth of the American Republic as completely compatible with the Christian religion and as the culminating event of Christian history. While it is true that many conservative Christians were patriots--John Jay, Patrick Henry, Alexander Hamilton, and Samuel Adams to name a few--many others openly supported the British cause. In other words, there were many earnest Christians who saw the Revolution as contrary to God's will. In his "Tory Believers: Which Higher Loyalty?" Mark Noll has ably shown that "Tory believers" were not merely confined to Anglicans, but also included Methodists, Baptists, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists.(1) Using such arguments as Paul's injunction "to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates" (Titus 3:1), Christian loyalists claimed solid support from Scripture in refusing to engage in a political revolution which they thought would end in anarchy.


    The other major figures of the American Revolution were not, contrary to popular belief, religious conservatives. But many of today's liberals go too far in calling them atheists, agnostics, or even deists.(2) George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and Benjamin Franklin were religious liberals who were heavily influenced by the new science and rational philosophy of the European Enlightenment. Although each of these men was a believer in God, their religious philosophy as a whole went contrary to the conventional religion of the day.

    The term "deist" is a common label attached to liberal religious thinkers of the eighteenth century. The fact is, however, that with the exception of Paine, none of our subjects called himself a deist in the sense of English or French deism, that theological movement in Europe that is generally assumed to have started with Herbert of Cherbury and ended with Voltaire. When referring to his own religious views, Jefferson uses deism as the simple Latin homologue of theism. In the letter to Benjamin Rush, Jefferson states that the Jews' "system was deism; that is, the belief in one only God."(3) He goes on to argue that Jesus "corrected the deism of the Jews" by giving "juster notions of [God's] attributes and government" and by providing a superior ethics. In his famous correspondence with Adams he refers favorably to the "deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth."(4) Standing in stark contrast were the continental deists (plus Paine), who would have nothing to do with the Bible, Jesus, or his teachings.

    In his autobiography Franklin relates that he was converted to deism at an early age but later gave it up, mainly due to its inability to distinguish vice from virtue. Franklin was a thoroughly practical philosopher and could not accept what he claimed to be the empty "metaphysical reasoning" of the deists.(5) Adams, although definitely a religious liberal, explicitly argues against the views of Bolingbroke, Blount, and Voltaire. Of Bolingbroke he says that "his religion is pompous folly; and his abuse of the Christian religion is as superficial as it is impious."(6)

    In 1704 Samuel Clarke, a staunch critic of deism, was able to delineate at least four types: (1) deists who denied providence and claimed that God had no relationship to the world except for its creation and predetermined laws; (2) deists who denied providence in moral affairs but allowed it with regard to natural events; (3) those who believed that God did have a role in human lives but held no belief in an afterlife; and (4) those who believed in providence in morals and nature and an afterlife.(7) The most widespread notion about what deism is corresponds most closely to the strict deism of (1). If this is true, then it would be inadvisable to call any of our subjects deists, because the evidence places them squarely in category (4). It is clear that the effects of the

    Enlightenment on American thought were mostly limited to a moderate phase in which Lockean empiricism and Newtonian science were readily reconciled with some form of liberal religion. If we are to call them deists, our subjects (except for Paine) were "constructive" deists rather than "critical" deists, i.e., those who were openly anti-Christian and anti-Bible.

    All in all I believe that the label "religious liberal" is a far better way of characterizing the religious thought of these founding fathers. I am of course using the term "liberal" in its original sense as derived from the Latin adjective liberalis, which means "pertaining to a free person." Classical liberalism is the general philosophy that opposed the authoritarian governments of eighteenth century Europe. The leaders of both the American and French Revolutions represent the first full embodiment of this liberalism. In the area of religion this liberalism took the form of free and unconventional thought about God; and, as we shall see, a rejection of most of the doctrines of orthodox Christianity. It also meant an ethical view that was heavily influenced by European free-thinking and which had a strong utilitarian bent. Our subjects definitely, preferred reason and utility to revelation in deciding matters of religion and ethics.

    The religious liberalism of these founding fathers has four main characteristics. The first is a belief in God, but not necessarily the God of orthodox Christianity. Among the religious liberals I shall discuss, the concept of God ranged from the God of Nature of Thomas Paine, through the impersonal Providence of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin, to the Biblical God of John Adams. Because their God was unorthodox, some of these men were called "atheists." This of course was totally undeserved and unfair.

    One of the most predominant aspects of the liberal God was its impersonality and indefinite attributes. Scriptural and doctrinal characterizations of God as a person with specified attributes were rejected in favor of a concept of God derived from human reason. Although firm in their insistence on the use of reason in matters of religion, the liberals were also keenly aware of its limits. The power of human reason does allow us to secure an argument for the existence of God (usually the teleological argument), but it does not allow us to speculate about his particular attributes. This quote from Paine is a good example of the preceding point: "We can know God only through his works. We cannot have a conception of any one attribute, but by following some principle that leads to it. We have only a confused idea of his power, if we have not the means of comprehending something of its immensity. We can have no idea of his wisdom, but by knowing the order and manner in which it acts."(8

    The liberals contented themselves with a general notion of God's justice, omniscience, and omnipotence. Included in this doctrine of God is the distinction between particular and general providence, a concept best expressed in the works of Bolingbroke, who was thoroughly read by Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and perhaps Washington. The doctrine of particular providence, that God was intimately involved in caring for each individual in detail, seemed to threaten human free-will. Seeing this danger to human autonomy, Bolingbroke proposed that God lays out the general framework for human action but does not interfere at an individual level. In our section on Washington we will find that the first president definitely believed in this view.

    A second characteristic of the liberal view was grounds for despair and rejection among the orthodox. The liberals held a strict separation between Christian doctrine and Christian ethics. Deemphasizing adherence to doctrine or creed, they held the fundamental ethical principal that Christians as well as non-Christians should accept one another and act virtuously. It is not mere affirmation of dogma that makes a person religious; rather, it is a person's ethical and moral conduct. This led the liberals to the inevitable conclusion that it is possible for an atheist to be moral.

    None of the liberals believed in the major doctrines of orthodox Christianity. As we will see in subsequent sections, they rejected some or all of the following doctrines: the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus, the virgin birth, the Bible as the literal word of God, predestination, Hell, Satan, and creatio ex nihilo. The only doctrine, other than a belief in God, that they held was the immortality of the soul and some sort of afterlife. Even with regard to the latter, we find some curious variations on the traditional belief. In his most sober moments, Jefferson, like Locke and Bolingbroke, decided that the question of an afterlife of rewards and punishments could not be decided by reason alone. On the face of it, it appeared to be an offense to God's perfection and its only possible value was to incite humans to do good deeds in this life.

    Adams was much more traditional in his belief in another life but, surprisingly enough, speculated that it would not be eternal. At the age of eighty Adams stated: "I believe, too, in a future state of rewards and punishments, but not eternal."(9) Franklin, arguing from the conservation of matter (both Jefferson and he were thorough-going materialists), firmly believed in an afterlife—one, however, not of bliss or perfection but "with all the inconveniences human life is liable to. . . ."(10) Paine's view of the afterlife is perhaps the most peculiar: "My own opinion is, that those whose lives have been spent in doing good and endeavoring to make their fellow mortals happy. . . . will be happy hereafter; and that the very wicked will meet with some punishment. But those who are neither good nor bad, or are too insignificant for notice, will be dropped entirely." (11) For thinkers who were supposedly conscious of the limits of reason, some of this speculation was definitely out of bounds.

    The third characteristic of a religious liberal is an unqualified affirmation of the separation of church and state. Our founding fathers had fresh knowledge of the disastrous effects of European governments which chose to dictate religious belief and support one religion against others. Therefore the words "God" and "Christianity" do not appear anywhere in the Constitution, primarily because of the influence of these religious liberals at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The Constitution (as amended) explicitly states that no office holder shall submit to a religious test and that no church may receive any form of support from the federal government.

    The fourth characteristic which epitomizes religious liberalism is a fundamental belief in religious liberty and religious tolerance. While it is true that many early Americans were supportive of religious tolerance for the various forms of Christianity, it was only our religious liberals, especially Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison, who fought for and eventually attained full religious freedom for atheists and non-Christian believers. According to our founding fathers, America should be a country where peoples of all faiths, including those who profess no religious belief, can live in peace and mutual benefit. Full religious liberty means not only freedom of religion, but freedom from religion. James Madison summed up this ideal in this apt motto: "Conscience is the most sacred of all property."(12)

Continued:

BENJAMIN FRANKLIN (1706-1790)

    Benjamin Franklin was a leading disciple of the European Enlightenment and America's first Renaissance man. He was a person of complete versatility, who made original contributions in many areas of science and humanities. As to matters of religion, Franklin was America's first great liberal. Preferring to study on Sundays, he seldom went to church. When he did attend, he was generally disappointed, because, as he observed in his Autobiography, the preachers seemed more intent upon making people good Calvinists than good citizens.

    In the Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776, there were clauses concerning religion to which Franklin took strong exception. The document contained a general statement of religious freedom and tolerance, but it was the specific qualifications for office holders that angered Franklin. An official was compelled to "acknowledge the being of God," and to affirm the following: "I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the Universe, the rewarder of the good and the punisher of the wicked; and I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration."(13) Franklin lost this battle at the convention and had to be content with a compromise over the status of Roman Catholics.

    Franklin had doubts about orthodox Christianity very early in life. "I was scarce fifteen," he states, "when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself."(14) He did not accept the Trinity or the deity of Christ.(15) He thought, like many religious liberals, that Jesus was a great moral teacher.

    He refused to believe the Calvinist doctrine of the depravity of humankind which Jonathan Edwards had expressed so well as an "ineffable wickedness" and "an abyss infinitely deeper than Hell." Franklin believed that humans were basically good, albeit fallible, and that they could lead a good, moral life with the aid of their own reason and with a minimum of divine intervention. What he found most lacking in the sermons of the day was an emphasis on morality and good deeds. For him a religious faith which was not productive of good works was worthless. In a letter to Joseph Huey, he states: "I mean real good works, works of kindness, charity, mercy, and public spirit; not holiday keeping, sermon reading or hearing, performing church ceremonies, or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments, despised even by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."(16)

    Franklin did believe in God, whom he addressed in his modest prayers as "O powerful Goodness, bountiful Father, merciful Guide." He argued that every person has a natural inclination to acknowledge the "infinitive power and Creator of nature." The worship of God should elevate one to "rational joy and pleasure" and to good works. Franklin apparently includes the word "rational" here to distinguish his view from more emotional forms of religion which stress God's total grace and humankind's total helplessness. Franklin believed that this type of religion tended to lead people away from the world and to become indifferent to what happens.

    The otherworldliness of the creeds of his day was directly antithetical to Franklin's emphasis on the good, rational life here and now. If Franklin were alive today, he would definitely be a "modernist" and a proponent of the "social gospel," the belief that the role of religion is to transform the immediate lives of all people, whatever their place in life and whatever their religion. In his writings, Franklin displayed the ultimate in religious tolerance. He used freely the term "God," but in his famous "Creed and Liturgy" there is no mention of Jesus Christ. He felt that the division of religion into many competing denominations was unfortunate. This state of affairs had divided people one against the other and had prevented them from confronting the real challenges of humankind.

    There is a famous dictum by Franklin that shows the real core of his religious views. It reads: "... Vicious actions are not hurtful because they are forbidden, but forbidden because they are hurtful. ..."(17) This is a fundamental criticism of orthodox religion, be it Christian, Muslim, or Jewish. A person obeys the laws of God, not merely because they are commanded on authority alone, but because human reason sees the basic goodness and utility in following those laws.

    Franklin's view on obedience to law is fundamental for the protection of human liberty, the main theme of the American Revolution. The American Constitution, with its provisions for a freely elected Congress and a system of checks and balances, eliminates the rule of an absolute sovereign who would force compliance to laws which were irrational and arbitrary. Franklin seems to imply the same for the rule and law of God. God was not an absolute sovereign and did not create humans so weak and so morally destitute that they would meekly submit to his arbitrary choices (e.g., predestination). No, God created us free, autonomous, and rational; and he made laws which are compatible with human reason. In the same way that we tend to agree and comply with the laws of Congress, we should agree and comply with the rational legislation of God. In fact, according to the English philosopher John Locke, who strongly influenced our founding fathers, the laws of the state should reflect the natural laws of God.

    Jonathan Edwards, the great American Calvinist, often used thunder and lightning as an example of God's arbitrary use of power. The contrasting image is Franklin, rationalist and scientist standing in a storm with a kite and a key on the string. Edwards' world was an irrational one in which people found themselves unfree, dependent, and humbled; but people were self-reliant, inquisitive, and proud in the rational world of Ben Franklin.

    THOMAS PAINE (1737-1809)

    Although not a native American, Thomas Paine did more for the success of the American Revolution than any other thinker. As Lafayette once said, "Free America without Thomas Paine is unthinkable."(18) Practically every literate American read Paine's "Common Sense." The illiterate, among whom were many of Washington's soldiers, were indirectly inspired by it. Paine was truly revolutionary America's vox populi.

    A later book by Paine, Age of Reason: Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology, was also widely read in America, but this time Americans, in an incredible display of religious intolerance, turned against the great patriot. Paine quickly realized that, contrary to his prediction, the revolution for complete religious liberty and freedom of thought had not followed upon the heels of the political revolution. Even a religious liberal like John Adams rejected him; the sponsor for his return to America, Thomas Jefferson, shunned him out of political expediency; and his own Quakers refused to bury him. Paine's reputation did not improve as Americans, who knew Age of Reason, looked back in retrospect. Theodore Roosevelt called Paine "that dirty little atheist" and provided this additional description: "There are infidels and infidels, but Paine belonged to the variety ... that apparently esteems a bladder of dirty water as the proper weapon with which to assail Christianity."(19)

    If one reads Age of Reason, one must agree that Paine's criticism of Christianity is not a model of diplomatic scholarship. The tone of the book is aptly portrayed in this statement concerning the virgin birth: "... Jesus Christ, begotten, they say, by a ghost, whom they call holy, on the body of a woman, engaged in marriage, and after married ... a theory which, speaking for myself, I hesitate not to disbelieve, and to say, is as fabulous and as false as God is true."(20) Behind irreverent rhetoric like the above, there are some interesting and, for some who read it, compelling points. First, Paine makes it clear that he is not an atheist. In fact, he claims that his book is designed to counter the effects of atheism. In his opinion, Christianity is founded on such poor arguments that it, rather than subduing atheism, unwittingly promotes its spread in the world. The first axiom of Paine's theology is that there is God and his creation and "no more."(21) What he meant by this "no more" is this: no idolatry of the Bible as the Word of God, no deification of Jesus the man and moral teacher, no miracles, no angels, no Hell, no original sin, no Trinity and no Virgin Mary. All of these additions to the first axiom are erroneous or mythical, and are actually detrimental to the cause of religion.

    Perhaps the most interesting points that Paine makes are the objections he raises against the concept of Revelation. Orthodox Christians take the entire Bible as pure Revelation, a direct and immediate message from God. Paine observes, however, that most of the Bible is straightforward historical fact or fancy that is not of this character at all. When Revelation is purported to have occurred, as in the case of Moses, God was speaking to one person and one person only. Revelation is always in the first person and therefore it is, by legal definition, only hearsay if the message goes beyond the single person.

    For Paine true Revelation is nature itself. Human language cannot serve as God's medium; it is too fragile and inadequate. Nature, however, is "an ever-existing original which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God."(22) The full implication of this theory is Paine's declaration that the true language of religion was the language of science. Paine sums up his religious creed in this statement: "The Almighty Lecturer, by displaying the principles of science in the structure of the universe, has invited man to study and imitation. It is as if He said to the inhabitants of this globe, that we call ours, 'I have made an earth for man to dwell upon, and I have rendered the starry heavens visible, to teach him science and the arts. He can now provide for his own comfort, and learn from my munificence to all, to be kind to each other.' "(23) Such was the new gospel of the great patriot, Thomas Paine. But because of this new gospel, Paine was vilified by a people whom he had helped to become free.

    GEORGE WASHINGTON (1732-1799)

    More myths have been created about our first president than about any other American. Mason Locke Weems, an Anglican minister, was the inventor of the notorious cherry tree story and many of the tales pertaining to Washington's religiosity. Professor Paul Boller of the University of Massachusetts has laid to rest all of these fabrications in his excellent book, George Washington and Religion. I am indebted to his thorough research for some of the major points of this section.

    Washington was not an intellectual but a man of action. He was not naturally given to deep reflection or detailed analysis of thought or belief. While Adams and Jefferson spent their last years reading philosophy and theology, and frequently writing to each other about it, Washington retired to the country and occupied himself with strictly non-intellectual pursuits. It was James Madison's opinion that Washington never "attended to the arguments for Christianity, and for the different systems of religion, [n]or in fact ... [had he] formed definite opinions on the subject."(24)

    There is virtually no evidence in Washington's writings to indicate a firm commitment to the Christian religion. He always I has something positive to say about religion in general. But there are a few remarks in his private correspondence and diaries, which have a touch of cynicism. He once wrote in his diary that he would have liked to have collected his rents on Sundays, but he declined because the people living on his land were "apparently very religious."(25) Writing to Lafayette with regard to religious toleration, he states: "Being no bigot myself, I am disposed to indulge the professors of Christianity in the church with that road to Heaven, which to them shall seem the most direct, plainest, easiest, and least liable to exception."(26)

    It seems that the only deep interest Washington had in the direction of religion was an enthusiasm for freemasonry. He was a nominal Episcopalian who attended church irregularly (ceasing after his retirement) and who never participated in Communion. While president he was once openly criticized from the pulpit by his pastor, James Abercrombie, for setting a poor example by not kneeling in prayer and by not celebrating the Lord's Supper.(27)

    Although Washington never refers to any specific readings in philosophy or theology, his religious liberalism is clearly apparent in numerous references made to the deity in his writings and speeches. In all of his voluminous writing only once does he speak of Jesus Christ and this single incident, a speech to the Delaware Indians, was most likely penned by an aide more orthodox than Washington. On the manuscript of another speech to Indian leaders, we can clearly see the word God crossed out and the phrase "the Great Spirit above" in Washington's handwriting.(28)

    Washington never refers to a personal God, the most frequent appellation being "Providence," one of the most impersonal terms for the divine. The doctrine of general providence, outlined in the introduction, is clearly implied in many of the passages interpreting historical events as divinely ordained. It is always the patriots in general, not specific individuals, who are guided by God's providence.

    There is a certain amount of fatalism also embodied in much of this writing on God's actions in the world. A God that gave specific responses to all human petitioners would not be the God of reason or the creator of nature's inexorable laws. The general plan is somehow set and it would be irrational for God to change it. This view does not appear to change throughout Washington's life. In 1776 he stated: "I will not lament or repine at any acts of Providence, because I am in great measure a convert to Mr. Pope's opinion that whatever is, is right. . . ."(29); and in 1797 he still agreed: "But [it] is not for man to scan the wisdom of providence. The best he can do is to submit to its decrees. Reason, Religion, and Philosophy teaches us to do this. . . . "(30)

      Dr. Benjamin Rush, medical scientist and friend of Franklin, reported to Thomas Jefferson that upon leaving office Washington met with a group of clergy who submitted a number of questions for Washington to answer. Since he had never made any public affirmation of Christianity, one of their questions was whether or not he was a Christian. Washington very kindly answered all of the questions except that crucial one.(31)

    The tolerance that Washington showed for all Christian denominations was another sign of his religious liberalism. There is the famous incident when Washington prevented his soldiers from burning the pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Day. When once looking for new servants, Washington emphasized that any good workmen would be acceptable, be they "Mohametans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or. . . atheists."(32)

    Washington firmly believed in the separation of church and state. Probably the most striking and controversial expression of this principle, in which Washington played a part, appears in the Treaty of Tripoli. Article Eleven of this treaty begins: "As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. . . ." (33) Later on, in times of religious emotionalism, this article raised many eyebrows among the orthodox. But in 1796, a time of religious rationalism, President Washington approved it and the treaty was ratified by the Senate in 1797 with no recorded debate, and signed by President John Adams.(34)

        In a recent biography of Washington Joseph J. Ellis describes the scene at Washington's death: "There were no ministers in the room, no prayers uttered, no Christian rituals offering the solace of everlasting life. . . . The historical evidence suggests that Washington did not think much about heaven or angels; the only place he knew his body was going was into the ground, and as for his soul, its ultimate location was unknowable.  He died as a Roman Stoic rather than a Christian saint." (34a)

    All in all, the evidence shows that George Washington was a religious liberal who believed in God as impersonal Providence. He probably did not believe in any of the doctrines of Christian orthodoxy. As Paul Boller concludes, "If Washington was a Christian, he was surely a Protestant of the most liberal per suasion."(35) In a famous sermon delivered in 1831, Bird Wilson declared that Washington was no more than a Unitarian.(36)

    During the early 1950's, definitely an era of religious emotionalism, Congress passed without debate a bill authorizing the construction of a "Capital Prayer Room." One of the religious relics of this edifice is a stained-glass window portraying George Washington kneeling in prayer at Valley Forge. Paul Boller has shown conclusively that the prayer incident at Valley Forge is "utterly without foundation in fact."(37) Furthermore, many people witnessed the fact that Washington, in contrast to most American worshippers of the time (including Martha Washington), did not kneel for prayer in church.(38) 

        Another alleged incident at Valley Forge was a vision in which Washington was visited by an angel, addressing him as "Son of the Republic," who offered prophecies of greatness for the new nation. Some of the websites that show this document indicate the Library of Congress as the source, but it was originally published in 1880 by Wesley Bradshaw in the National Review. (38a)  In the article Bradshaw admits that the source was not Washington's own writings, but his grandmother instead.

        Worthington C. Ford and Rupert Hughes have conclusively proved that Washington's so-called "Prayer Book" is a forgery.  Washington's handwriting and spelling was known to be atrocious, but this particular hand is elegant and spell perfect.  The prayers also have a very strong resemblance to the Episcopalian Book of Prayer.(38b)  As final proof of the hoax the Smithsonian Institution rejected the book as genuine Washingtonian memorabilia.

    It is clear from what we know of his character and philosophy that this Congressional gesture, although made with the best of intentions, would have been a great embarrassment to Washington. (The cherry tree story was bad enough.) He was a very private person, especially in matters of religion, and he would have been scandalized at the prospect of a state-supported prayer room with his supplicating figure as the main attraction. There is an observation by Washington's adopted daughter which makes for a very appropriate conclusion: "He was not one of those who act or pray 'that they may be seen of men.' He communed with his God in secret."(39)

    THOMAS JEFFERSON (1743-1826)

    Thomas Jefferson was one of the most outstanding minds in American history. He was a consummate statesman and thinker. His intellectual prowess could have easily qualified him for a professorship in classics, political science, philosophy, or theology. Judging from the emphasis in his writings, it is conceivable that he might have chosen theology and Biblical studies if he had followed an academic career. Paul Blanshard, in God and Man in Washington, states that "although he was not a church member, Jefferson was probably more interested in religion than any of our other presidents."(40) It is highly ironic then to find that Jefferson was criticized in the election of 1800 as "an atheist and leveler from Virginia." Again we find the religiously orthodox completely unable to understand or to respect religious liberalism.

    In 1787 Jefferson wrote a fatherly letter of advice to his nephew Peter Carr. This provides a valuable insight into the critical method Jefferson himself might have used to come to his own views on religion. The first and principal rule concerns the role of reason: "Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God."(41) The second rule concerns the Bible and follows from the first rule. Using reason, one should examine the Bible critically. If one considers it a human creation, it will then contain both truth and error. For example, the critical eye will come across events that seem contrary to nature's laws. Reason, says Jefferson, will exclude those as myth.

    Jefferson came out of this critical investigation with a belief in God intact, but with a disbelief in most, if not all, Christian doctrine. He did not believe that Jesus was God; Jesus claimed only "human excellence." He did not believe in the virgin birth or the Trinity. Jefferson found the Trinity especially unintelligible. In a letter to James Smith in 1822 he states: "The Athanasian paradox that one is three, and three but one, is so incomprehensible to the human mind, that no candid man can say he has any idea of it. . . ."(42) He tells Smith to keep this rejection of the Trinity confidential, so that his reputation would not be further defamed by those who thought that strict compliance to Christian doctrine was the mark of a religious person.

    Jefferson still claimed to be a "real" Christian, because he maintained that the major emphasis of Jesus' message was good deeds and not unintelligible creeds. He still thought that Christianity was the best possible religion because of its ethics and its celebration of the human mind. In a letter to Moses Robinson in 1801, he affirms: ". . . the Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of its benevolent instructor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind."(43)

    Jefferson attempted to distill the "original purity and simplicity" of the philosophy of Jesus in a book called The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, commonly known as the "Jeffersonian Bible." Jefferson selected those verses which showed Jesus as a man and a great moral teacher. Carefully excised were any verses that supported the traditional doctrines, Christ's divinity, the virgin birth, the Trinity, and Hell. These doctrines were the political additions by priestly men who wished to increase the power of themselves and the church. "The greatest enemies of the doctrines of Jesus," Jefferson wrote to John Adams, "are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy, absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words."(44) After all, Jefferson might well have argued, it is not necessary to believe in the divinity of Jesus in order to love one's neighbor.

    One of the greatest corruptors of the teachings of Jesus was, in Jefferson's opinion, John Calvin. In a letter to John Adams in 1823, he has nothing but contempt for Calvin. Calvin was a "demon and malignant spirit," and he created a religion of "demonism." After listing Calvin's errors, e.g., God's predestination of the elect and the depravity of humans, he contends: "It would be more pardonable to believe in no God at all, than to blaspheme Him by the atrocious attributes of Calvin."(45)

    In the election of 1800, as I have noted above, Jefferson's religious views were a major campaign issue. Jefferson's political opponents, the Federalists, tried to discredit him because of his religious liberalism. Rumors were spread that Jefferson would confiscate all the Bibles in the land and substitute his own version. Alexander Hamilton suggested devious political means to block Jefferson's election in New York in order to prevent "an atheist in religion and a fanatic in politics from getting possession of the helm of state." John Jay, then governor of New York and a Federalist, fortunately rejected Hamilton's suggestion.

    Jefferson's opinion on prayer in public schools was very similar to the views of our own liberal Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas. Following the principles of religious liberty which he and Madison had fought for, he concluded that prayer in the schools should be strictly voluntary and there should be a separate room for that purpose. Justice Douglas' own proposal is similar, but with the proviso that the worship facility be financed from non-tax sources.(46)

    Jefferson believed in the separation of church and state so strongly that he and Andrew Jackson are the only presidents who declined to make the traditional presidential proclamation to celebrate Thanksgiving Day.(47) Washington had started the tradition during his first term. He thought that the proclamation was only a "recommendation"; therefore he had felt that he had not violated the principle. Jefferson argued, however, that the state should not officiate in anything religious, including a day of thanksgiving and prayer.

    In many places in his writings, Jefferson suggests that we judge a religion not on the basis of its scripture or its doctrine, but on the ethical result of its practice. In a letter to Miles King, Jefferson states: "I must ever believe that religion substantially good which produces an honest life. ... "(48) Jefferson's utilitarianism is not of the same theoretical purity as that of Bentham or Mill, as he believed that God endowed all men with a moral sense of judging right from wrong. But as Adrienne Koch has observed: "Jefferson held the theory of moral sense in an unorthodox form, giving ground to historical change and social 'refinement' of our moral judgments."(49) In true utilitarian style, Jefferson extols the "social advantages" of the moral-sense theory. There are conceivably many exceptions to any moral rule and when such "is wanting, we endeavor to supply the defect by education, by appeals to reason and calculation ... [e.g.] demonstrations by sound calculation that honesty promotes interest in the long run."(50) Koch concludes that, with some qualifications, Jefferson emerges as "a full-fledged altruistic utilitarian."(51)

    Perhaps the ultimate test for such a utilitarian would be the question: Can the atheist be moral? In at least two passages in Jefferson's writings the answer is clearly affirmative. The first is found in the letter to Thomas Law cited above. Here Jefferson respects the atheism and firmly defends the morality of the French philosophes, Diderot, D'Alembert, D'Holbach, Condorcet, who "are known to have been among the most virtuous of men. Their virtue then must have had some other foundation than the love of God." The second reference is in the letter to his nephew Peter Carr which was mentioned above. Jefferson quite frankly suggests the possibility that the young Carr, using the critical method he proposed, might become an atheist. The following is Jefferson's advice: "If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you."(52)

    This is a statement of an ideal, the ideal of the most perfect religious tolerance. Such supreme tolerance was only possible in the context of the natural religion of the liberals and their clean divorce of ethics from religious doctrine. Jefferson believed that this ought to be the goal of all American religious life: that Americans have complete religious liberty, freedom from as well as of religion. Jefferson soon discovered, even in his own personal experience, that this ideal was far from being realized. He was to experience the aspersions cast upon his character in the election of 1800, and the abuse to which his friend Paine was subjected when he returned to America.

Concluded:

JOHN ADAMS (1735-1826)

    A first impression of our second president may lead us to conclude that he does not belong with the religious liberals discussed in this essay. The Adams family had a strong Calvinistic background, and John Adams was a regular churchgoer and Bible reader. As a student at Harvard, Adams faithfully attended daily prayers in the campus chapel. As an adult he regularly attended Sunday services, sometimes three times in one day.  Adams' favorite texts were the Bible and Cicero and he studied the Bible on Thursday through Sunday mornings every week. 

    After seeing Franklin in action in Paris, Adams stated that Franklin "has no religion ... [and] all the atheists, deists, and libertines as well as philosophers and ladies are in his train."(53) Furthermore, Adams reacted violently to Paine's Age of Reason and scolded him in person for stating such "ridiculous" things about the Old Testament. Although he would come to agree more and more with Jefferson in later years, the younger Adams simply could not understand Jefferson's objection to federally approved fast day that came before the Continental Congress in Philadelphia.  Why, wrote Adams to Benjamin Rush, was he making himself out to be "an enemy of Christianity"? (53a)

     Adams held a firm belief in God and contended that such a belief was necessary for morality. He also recognized the role of human reason in morality, but in contrast to Jefferson and Franklin, he deemphasized human perfectibility through reason alone. He believed in God's providence and in miracles, and he thought that the Bible contained "the most perfect philosophy, the most perfect morality, and the most refined policy."(54) Adams explicitly stated that the principles of the American Revolution were the same as the general principles of Christianity.(55)

    But this same man signed the Treaty of Tripoli with its notorious Article Eleven which began: "As the Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion. . . ." Is this not a direct contradiction to the views expressed above? If we understand clearly what Adams meant by general Christian principles, the contradiction dissolves. Like the religious liberals of his time, Adams believed that the essential message of Jesus was ethical, not doctrinal. Truth, justice, liberty, and brotherhood are the principles of Christianity, and it is these which Adams felt coincided with the principles of the American Revolution. The American Revolution was certainly not fought on the basis of Christ's divinity, the Trinity, or the Virgin Birth. Therefore, to return to the Treaty of Tripoli, it would have been perfectly legitimate to state that the U.S. government is founded on Christian principles of liberty and justice, but not on the dogmas of orthodox religion.

    Adams became disillusioned with his strictly Calvinist upbringing early on; and, as this entry in his diary indicates, he began to loathe evangelical preachers: "... and Sundays are sacrificed 'to the frigid performances' of disciples of 'frigid John Calvin.' "(56) It is also apparent that some people around him sensed his dissatisfaction and knew of his liberal views. In a diary entry of 1756, Adams (then 21) recounts a discussion he had with a Major Greene about the divinity of Christ. Major Greene's argument left Adams completely unconvinced, as can be seen in his marginal note: "Thus mystery is made a convenient cover for absurdity."(57)

    Adams believed firmly in the first principle of religious liberalism: that Christian morality is separate and distinct from Christian doctrine. Like Jefferson, Adams was convinced that in the Bible one can find ethics only. As he states: "Where do we find a precept in the Gospel for ... Creeds, Confessions, Oaths ... and whole cartloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"(58) Adams was a solid intellectual and enjoyed exchanges with people like Benjamin Rush and, later on, with Thomas Jefferson. He read the classics, philosophy, and theology voraciously and initiated studies in the areas of the sociology of religion and comparative religion. He thought that we should study the other religions of the world thoroughly and accept these other views if they could prove themselves in the court of reason and common sense.(59) He concluded that anyone practicing Christian morality should be called a Christian, even though that person may not believe in Christ's deity or the Trinity. In a letter to Jefferson in 1813, he puts it very simply: "Yet I believe all the honest men among you are Christians, in my sense of the word."(60)

    Adams felt so strongly about the importance of morality that he held that virtue, not liberty, is the first principle of government.(61) The responsible use of freedom cannot flourish without a foundation in morality. Adams argued that human kindness stems from being good and doing right, rather than simply doing what one pleases. Adams' priority of virtue would not set well with today's libertarians, who stress the right of people to do as they please as long as they do not kill, assault, rob, or defraud. None of our founding fathers would have agreed with this.

    With the political wounds of the past healed, Jefferson and Adams exchanged many letters in their retirement and discovered many points of agreement on religion. They both ridiculed John Calvin and expressed dismay at those who thought the Trinity or Jesus' divinity to be intelligible propositions. Neither, however, ever made any public statement about his unorthodox views.

    At the age of eighty, Adams composed an elegant summary of his religious faith: "My religion is founded on the love of God and my neighbor; on the hope of pardon for my offenses; upon contrition; upon the duty as well as necessity of supporting with patience the inevitable evils of life; in the duty of doing no wrong, but all the good I can, to the creation of which I am but an infinitesimal part . . . I believe, too, in a future state of rewards and punishments, but not eternal."(62)

    JAMES MADISON (1751-1836)

    Our fourth president, along with Thomas Jefferson, did more than any other American to promote the principles of complete religious liberty. The problem of religious intolerance vexed Madison "the worst of anything whatever." Madison believed that one owns one's thoughts and conscience in the same way that one owns private property. Following the philosophy of John Locke, our founding fathers believed that by mixing labor with things, by making or buying, a person has a natural right to hold those things as private property. Madison concluded that the same holds for a person's thoughts and opinions, be they political, economic, or religious. As Madison stated in 1792: "As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights."(63) An American would have the right to believe in a king, or to disbelieve in God. Madison seems to imply that a person even has the right to hold the false belief that private property is not a natural right.

    The state constitutions of Revolutionary America contained many clauses that did not conform to the Madison formula. Many states had provisions that discriminated against Roman Catholics. Many states had "established" churches, that is, one denomination that was state-supported. In the Franklin section we saw that Pennsylvania required office-holders to be orthodox Christians. Similar religious tests for officials were found in New Jersey, Delaware, North and South Carolina.(64) In contrast, the federal Constitution (as amended) expressly forbade the establishment of religion and the use of religious tests for office-holders. Many states, however, continued with established churches and religious tests.

    In Virginia, where Madison and Jefferson were to make their great contribution, the Episcopal Church was established. During 1744 Baptists and other sectarian Christians were being persecuted and arrested. With regard to this situation, Madison wrote: "That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some; and to their eternal infamy, the clergy can furnish their quota of imps for such business. This vexes me the worst of anything whatever. There are at this time in the adjacent county not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments . . . . "(65)

    Primarily because of the valiant efforts of Madison and Jefferson, the Episcopal Church was gradually disestablished in Virginia. There were still efforts, however, by some to get some state support for the teaching of the Christian religion. In 1785 a bill was introduced to this effect and found supporters in such men as Patrick Henry and John Marshall. Jefferson and Madison strongly opposed it.(66) The bill would have essentially reestablished Christianity in general as the religion of the state, and thereby discriminated against Jews and other non-Christians. Madison and Jefferson specifically objected to the wording that made Christ "the Holy Author of our religion" because of the implicit exclusion of non-Christians.(67)

    As a result of the vigorous debate on this bill, Madison composed in 1785 his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments." In it he states: "The religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an inalienable right." His support of non-Christians and atheists is implicit but clear: "Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess, and to observe the religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet I yielded to the evidence which has convinced us."(68)

    During his presidency, Madison stood firm on his principles, including the principle of the separation of church and state. Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress, and to the exemption of churches from taxation.(69) Both traditions have persisted until the present despite Madison's criticisms. Oddly enough. President Madison did give official sanction to Thanksgiving Day, something which President Jefferson declined to do. In February of 1811, Madison vetoed a federal land grant to a Baptist church and a bill which would have established an Episcopal church in the District of Columbia.(70) In each veto message there is a stern reminder about the Constitution's explicit provision that the "Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment."

    In his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance," Madison argues that the establishment of Christianity "is a contradiction to the Christian religion itself; for every page of it disavows dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them."(71) Throughout history we have found that where politics and religion intermingle, there has always been trouble. And both politics and religion have suffered because of it. In a letter of July, 1822, Madison states that "such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against . . . religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."(72)

    CONCLUSION

    We have examined the religious views of six great Americans: the first four presidents, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine. We should keep in mind the fact that none of these thinkers could be called philosophers by any strict definition of that term. They were philosophers in the broad sense of having a love for ideas and an avid interest in the advances in reason and science. They were highly eclectic, sometimes inconsistent, and unsystematic. Koch describes Jefferson, probably the best thinker of the six, as "impatient with long intellectual stocktaking" and making "no energetic attempt to resolve the inconsistencies" of his ethical views.(73) None of them begin to qualify in the area of conceptual analysis or systematic metaphysics. But in the lives and works of these great Americans, we find some of the finest expressions of religious tolerance, love of reason, and adherence to principle. As we enter America's third century, let us keep in mind Madison's motto that "conscience is the most sacred of all property;" and that all Americans, regardless of political or religious persuasion, should be entitled, in Jefferson's words, to "the comfort and pleasantness ... and the love of others" which the free exercise of conscience will procure for them.

NOTES

1. Christianity Today, July 2, 1976.

2. See for example Edward Sorel's cartoon in The Village Voice, December 29, 1975. Sorel's protagonist is addressing Billy Graham with the following words: "Er ... I'm afraid I have ... er ... some disturbing news for you. Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, Payne [sic] and most of the other signers were either deists, agnostics, or ... atheists. Which explains, of course, why we didn't find any mention of God in the Declaration [sic] or Constitution."

3. To Benjamin Rush, April 21, 1803.

4. To John Adams, May 5, 1817.

5. Carl Van Doren, ed., Benjamin Franklin's Autobiographical Writings (New York, Viking, 1945), pp. 257-8.

6. L. H. Bitterfeld, ed., The Diary and Autobiography of John Adams (Cambridge, 1961), III, 264.

7. E. C. Mossier, "Deism," in The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, ed. Paul Edwards (New York, Macmillan, 1976), II, 327.

8. P.S. Finer, ed., The Complete Writings of Thomas Paine (New York, Citadel, 1945), I, 601.

9. Charles Francis Adams, ed.. The Works of John Adams (Boston, 1850-56), X, 170.

10. Van Doren, op. cit., p. 642.

11. Finer, op. cit., II, 893.

12. National Gazette, March 29, 1792.

13. S. H. Cobb, The Rise of Religious Liberty in America (New York, 1902), p.503.

14. Van Doren, op. cit., p. 257.

15. Ibid., p.784.

16. To Joseph Huey, June 6, 1753.

17. Van Doren, op. cit., p. 632.

18. Quoted in E. S. Bates, American Faith (New York, 1940), p. 269.

19. Theodore Roosevelt, Governeur Morris (Cambridge, 1888), p. 289.

20. Finer, op. cit., I, 555.

21. Ibid., p. 464.

22. Ibid., p. 483.

23. Ibid., p. 490.

24. Quoted in Paul F. Boller, Jr., George Washington and Religion (Dallas, 1963), p. 89.

25. Quoted in P. L. Ford, George Washington (Philadelphia, 1896), p. 79.

26. J. C. Fitzpatrick, ed., The Writings of George Washington (Washington, 1939), XII, 162.

27. W. F. Woodward, George Washington: The Image and the Man (New York, 1926), p. 144. See also Boller, op. cit., pp. 33-34.

28. Boller, op. cit., pp. 68-9.

29. To Joseph Reed, March 7, 1776.

30. To Henry Knox, March 2, 1797.

31. See Boller, op. cit., pp. 80-86.

32. To Tench Tilghman, March 24, 1784.

33. Hunter Miller, ed.. Treaties and other International Acts of the United States of America (Washington, D.C., 1931), II, 349-385. The full text of Article Eleven is the following: "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

There are some intriguing facts concerning this clause. The English translation was made by Joel Barlow, the American negotiator and signator, and has been taken as the official translation of the Arabic original. But here lies the rub. As Hunter Miller states: 'The most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article Eleven of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase ... does not exist at all [i.e., in the Arabic version]" (p. 384). Miller observes that there is no evidence at all in the diplomatic correspondence of the time that gives a clue about the reason for this clause in the English translation.

The initial and distinct impression the English version gives is that the Muslim leaders demanded such a strong statement of principle as a major concession by the U.S. (One could not have even imagined demanding the same from the theocratic ideologues of Tripoli. In the Arabic version each and every article begins with a praise to Allah!) But the Arabic version does not read like a concession at all. The Arabic that Barlow apparently made into Article Eleven is appended at the end of Article Ten in the Arabic version. All that is stated here is a principle of general religious tolerance: that Christians should respect Muslims when in America and vice versa. There is nothing at all in the Arabic to support Barlow's strong statement. The solution to this problem, I believe, lies in the motives of Barlow himself, not in those of the Muslim theocrats. It is clear that Barlow's translation, which was ratified by the Senate, gave the Muslims more than they actually bargained for.

Barlow was a good friend of Thomas Paine and a religious liberal himself. In the preface to the second part of Age of Reason, Paine relates that he entrusted the original MS. of the book to Barlow for safe-keeping. (Paine was in a French prison at the time.) This is a strong indication that Barlow and Paine were in basic agreement about religion, perhaps including Paine's strong anti-Christian sentiments. It is only conjecture, but did Barlow believe so strongly in the separation of church and state that he deliberately mistranslated the text of the Treaty of Tripoli? The mystery behind this clause may never be solved. Regardless of Barlow's motivations, there are these events which remain indubitably clear: President Washington accepted the draft of the treaty in Barlow's form, the senate ratified it with no debate (at least none has been recorded), and President Adams confirmed the Senate's ratification in June, 1797.

34. Charles and Mary Beard phrase Washington's role a little more forcefully by stating that President Washington "allowed it to be squarely stated. ..." The Beards, however, offer no documentation to support this point. See their The Rise of American Civilization (New York, 1930), vol. 1, p. 439.

34a.  Joseph J. Ellis, His Excellency: George Washington (New York: Knopf, 2004), cited in Garry Willis, "The Wise Warrior," New York Review of Books (March 10, 2005), p. 16.

35. Boller, op. cit., p. 91. Boller also states: "On the other hand, if to believe in the divinity of Christ and his atonement for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper are requisites for the Christian faith, then Washington, on the evidence which we have examined, can hardly be considered a Christian, except in the most nominal sense" (p. 90). Boller also quotes from James Abercrombie, Washington's pastor, who states that "I cannot consider any man as a real Christian who uniformly disregards an ordinance [i.e.. Communion] so solemnly enjoined by the divine Author of our holy religion, and considered as a channel of divine grace" (ibid.).

36. Ibid., p. 15.

37. Ibid., p. 10.

38. Ford, op. cit., pp. 82-3.

38a. The National Review 4: 12 (December, 1880). For the complete text see  www.geocities.com/Athens/Aegean/2444/ gwvision.html.

38b.  See Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/ franklin_steiner/presidents.html#1.

39. Jared Sparks, ed., The Writings of Washington (Boston, 1837), XII, 406. Sparks's editing and commentary are considered inaccurate, unreliable, and even fraudulent by professional historians today. Sparks was definitely building a pious monument and not writing objective history. This comment by Washington's daughter runs so much against the utmost piety that Sparks attempts to instill in Washington that I believe its credibility is thereby considerably strengthened.

40. Paul Blanshard, Man and God in Washington (Boston, 1960), p. 35.

41. A. A. Limpscomb, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson (Washington, 1903). VI, 258.

42. Ibid., XV, 409.

43. Ibid., X, 237.

44. Ibid., XV, 430.

45. Ibid., XV, 425.

46. Blanshard, op. cit., p. 14.

47. Cushing Strout, The New Heavens and the New Earth (New York, 1974), p. 97.

48. To Miles King, September 26, 1814.

49. Adrienne Koch, The Philosophy of Thomas Jefferson (Chicago, Quadrangle, 1943), p. 18.

50. To Thomas Law, June 13, 1814.

51. Koch, op. cit., p. 29.

52. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, VI, 260.

53. Page Smith, John Adams (Westport, Conn., 1962), I, 433.

53a. Quoted in David McCullough, John Adams (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2001), p. 113.

54. Ibid., II, 1078.

55. To Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813.

56. L. H. Bitterfeld, ed., The Earliest Diary of John Adams (Cambridge, 1966) p. 37.

57. L. H. Bitterfeld, ed., The Diary and Autobiography of John Adams (Cambridge, 1961), I, 6

58. Ibid., p. 8.

59. Smith, op. cit., II, 1079.

60. To Thomas Jefferson, September 14, 1813.

61. The Works of John Adams, IV, 193-4.

62. Ibid., X, 170.

63. National Gazette, March 29, 1792. This article and many more of the original Madison texts are included in Saul K. Padover, ed., The Complete Madison (New York, 1953), p. 267.

64. See Cobb, op. cit., pp. 490-505.

65. Padover, op. cit., p. 298.

66. Cobb, op. at., p. 496.

67. Strout, op. cit., p. 88.

68. Padover, op. cit., pp. 300, 301.

69. Strout, op. cit., p. 97.

70. Padover, op. cit., pp. 307-8.

71. Ibid., p.302.

72. Ibid., p. 309.

73. Koch, op. cit., p. 14.

lol, as my techie younger brother would say

"pwned"

Do you think the Founding Fathers could have been neither completely liberal nor completely conservative?  

Wouldn't that make them Centrists?

Flint

Flint:  You copy and paste more stuff than anyone I've ever seen, but here is an article you might enjoy reading about our Founding Fathers and the start of this country:

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909 (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909)

Flint, where'd you come up with all this stuff?

I'm wondering who Nicholas F. Gier is?  He  does not appear to be from the same
stock as our founding fathers.  You're getting pretty far left there, Flint. 

Sarah,

Gee, I've already been all over that website.  Perhaps I would be more acceptable of the positions of the conservative religious right if they would acknowledge the concept that some people believe they (the right) have been co-opted to varying degrees by uber-right, quasi-anarchist Reactionaries, whose main goal is to have this nation revert to a time when only white, anglo-saxon, Protestant land owning males over the age of 21 had the right to determine the direction of this great nation of ours.

Red,

If the Founding Fathers were as far right as you seem to think they were, we wouldn't have had to wait for Mussolini and Hitler to show the world what Fascism was.

Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 03:40:50 PM
Gee, I've already been all over that website.  Perhaps I would be more acceptable of the positions of the conservative religious right if they would acknowledge the concept that some people believe they (the right) have been co-opted to varying degrees by uber-right, quasi-anarchist Reactionaries, whose main goal is to have this nation revert to a time when only white, anglo-saxon, Protestant land owning males over the age of 21 have the right to determine the direction of this great nation of ours.

No, I don't think so, but you lean too far the other way without providing balance and at least acknowledge that a huge chunk of the founding fathers were indeed Christians and the reason why they wanted the "freedom of religion" was to keep from happening here what was happening in England where the government came in and set up a "national" religion that everyone had to be.  We wanted everyone to be able to practice what they wanted and not be told by government what they should practice.

Flint-

You have a problem with your so-named "religious right" too - whatever that is to you?

You sound like an Obama type and you seem much closer to him than to some of the
opinions expressed on this forum.

 

And you, and some others on here, sound a lot like the 'Kloseted Klan' that have, to varying degrees, taken over the religious right positions of the classical conservative side of American political philosophy.

Sorry to disappoint you, Flint, but your Klan accusation is worthless.

Then so is your supposition that I am a Leftist.

Kloseted Klan?  Really?...

Leave it to the left to start throwing around the racism card.  Typical.

And leave it to the Reactionary, quasi-Anarchists to tag everyone else with the Leftist label.

Flint is hardly a leftist.

Sarah and others...  I can acknowledge all day long that a lot of the founders were christians.  I can also acknowledge that those christians chose to exclude the words "christianity" and "jesus" from the constitution.  It was said that because "God" appears in different documents, that our country is meant to be a christian nation.  Guess what, Christians don't have a monopoly on the word "God"

I think it's a farce that someone can come here, and answer yes to these questions....

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people's liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.

18. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops should never serve under foreign commanders or wear the uniform or insignia of the United Nations, and that they must never submit to illegal orders, such as turning their weapons against American citizens, or confiscating the guns of U.S. citizens.

32. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops are not the world's policemen, that they are not "nation-builders," and that their purpose is only to defend American lives and property, not to be the enforcement arm of international commercial interests or global elitists.

35. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose sending billions of taxpayer dollars as foreign aid; the U.S. State Department meddling into the private affairs of foreign countries; and ubiquitous foreign entanglements that require vast sums of money, create animosity and hostility towards us, and expose us to foreign wars and conflicts in which we have no national interest.

And then in the same thread, express viewpoints contrary to every one of those questions.  Instead of recognizing the double talk or realizing that there are people amongst you who believe its ok for foreigners influencing our government, you all pat him on the back and you jump on the people who are trying to wake you all up.

Oh, but Anmar, you don't have to drink the Kool-aid to be a Constitutionalist.  You just have to sniff it once in awhile.

They're just applying their soon-to-be patented method of interpretation.  Strict Constructionist one minute, and Contextualist the next.

Again, the uber-right plays by a very simple set of rules:

Rule 1.  When they're right, they're right.

Rule 2.  If they happen to be wrong, refer to Rule 1.

From the Center

Flint

As far as I know Anmar, I didn't answer anything contrary to any of those points............so, if you point them out...........then maybe we can discuss it. 

What are you babbling about?

Sarah and I know i for one don't agree with the following parts you excised from the original text.  
Secondly, the word God IS a direct reference to the one true God that is worshipped by the judaeo/christian population.  It is not the same god that buddists, muslims, and other beliefs worship.
It is a distinct usage of Jehovah that Christians and jews have used for millenia.

Quote from: Anmar on November 01, 2009, 08:38:10 PM
Flint is hardly a leftist.

Sarah and others...  I can acknowledge all day long that a lot of the founders were christians.  I can also acknowledge that those christians chose to exclude the words "christianity" and "jesus" from the constitution.  It was said that because "God" appears in different documents, that our country is meant to be a christian nation.  Guess what, Christians don't have a monopoly on the word "God"

I think it's a farce that someone can come here, and answer yes to these questions....

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people's liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.

18. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops should never serve under foreign commanders or wear the uniform or insignia of the United Nations, and that they must never submit to illegal orders, such as turning their weapons against American citizens, or confiscating the guns of U.S. citizens.

32. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops are not the world's policemen, that they are not "nation-builders," and that their purpose is only to defend American lives and property, not to be the enforcement arm of international commercial interests or global elitists.

35. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose sending billions of taxpayer dollars as foreign aid; the U.S. State Department meddling into the private affairs of foreign countries; and ubiquitous foreign entanglements that require vast sums of money, create animosity and hostility towards us, and expose us to foreign wars and conflicts in which we have no national interest.

And then in the same thread, express viewpoints contrary to every one of those questions.  Instead of recognizing the double talk or realizing that there are people amongst you who believe its ok for foreigners influencing our government, you all pat him on the back and you jump on the people who are trying to wake you all up.

Quote from: Sarah on November 01, 2009, 08:56:01 PM
As far as I know Anmar, I didn't answer anything contrary to any of those points............so, if you point them out...........then maybe we can discuss it. 

I'm referrring to billy's claim that he answered yes to all but 1 question.  I don't recall your scores Steve and Sarah.

I just received my long anticipated letter from ABC.  I had applied to replace John Stossel when he announced he was going to Fox.

They turned me down saying I was even more of a center-right contrarian than Stossel was.  

From the center

Flint

I have never said that the states are justified in their regulation of gun rights. I do know that each state is a sovereign state that can make laws concerning its citizens and prevent other states from imposing their laws on the states people.  Now each state has its constitution and they all have stepped into a big hairy furball by trying to regulate guns.  It is technically a violation of constitutional rights.  They are allowed to remove the rights to own a gun IF you commit a felony or are mentally incapacitated. BUT it is again a violation of the constitution when that felon is released after having paid their debt in full and not restoring these rights.  So if this felon cannot be entrusted to have these rights, you either incarcerate them until they can, or kill them. one or the other.
either way problem solved.

Quote from: Anmar on November 01, 2009, 09:00:46 PM

Quote from: Sarah on November 01, 2009, 08:56:01 PM
As far as I know Anmar, I didn't answer anything contrary to any of those points............so, if you point them out...........then maybe we can discuss it. 

I'm referrring to billy's claim that he answered yes to all but 1 question.  I don't recall your scores Steve and Sarah.

Mine was 36 but i waver by one.  I maybe a constitutionalist but i am not so stupid to think that we can't leave things like 9/11 unanswered.   

Steve, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights contain wording to support the position you just repeated.  Where are you getting this from?

Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 09:08:17 PM
Steve, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights contain wording to support the position you just repeated.  Where are you getting this from?

Specifically what are you talking about?  The bill of rights does support this. There is no infringement on gun ownership.

Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 09:11:02 PM

Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 09:08:17 PM
Steve, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights contain wording to support the position you just repeated.  Where are you getting this from?

Specifically what are you talking about?  

All of it!

About the only way you can get your assertion to confrom with the Constitution and Bill of Rights is too apply about five different methods of judicial interpretation to four or five different clauses, simoultaniously, and then just pull some additional language out of thin air, which would be activism.

Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 09:12:13 PM

Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 09:11:02 PM

Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 09:08:17 PM
Steve, neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights contain wording to support the position you just repeated.  Where are you getting this from?

Specifically what are you talking about? 

All of it!

Your disagreeing that the keeping and bearing arms is not in the constitution?

Quote from: srkruzich on November 01, 2009, 09:05:21 PM
I have never said that the states are justified in their regulation of gun rights. I do know that each state is a sovereign state that can make laws concerning its citizens and prevent other states from imposing their laws on the states people.  Now each state has its constitution and they all have stepped into a big hairy furball by trying to regulate guns.  It is technically a violation of constitutional rights.  They are allowed to remove the rights to own a gun IF you commit a felony or are mentally incapacitated. BUT it is again a violation of the constitution when that felon is released after having paid their debt in full and not restoring these rights.  So if this felon cannot be entrusted to have these rights, you either incarcerate them until they can, or kill them. one or the other. either way problem solved.

Since you were typing while I was adding to my post, here are the statements I am referring to:

prevent other states from imposing their laws on the states people

They are allowed to remove the rights to own a gun IF you commit a felony or are mentally incapacitated.

BUT it is again a violation of the constitution when that felon is released after having paid their debt in full and not restoring these rights.

I'm not conceeding to your viewpoint on the sovereignty issue, but that is an entirely different argument in itself.

Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 09:21:54 PM


prevent other states from imposing their laws on the states people

Thats a states rights issue. Each state makes its own laws. No other state is subject to imposing other states laws on its citizens.

QuoteThey are allowed to remove the rights to own a gun IF you commit a felony or are mentally incapacitated.
[/quote
All felons have their citizenship stripped.  They are no longer considered a citizen of the united states therefore they cannot have constitutional rights. They are imprisoned.  Once released, and once they have paid in full the sentence, they are repatriotized into the country. But They have not been granted all rights back when repatriotized these days which is a violation.  Either they are Citizens or their not.

so it is again a violation of the constitution when that felon is released after having paid their debt in full and not restoring these rights.

Again, where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights does it state what you saying?

You keep avoiding an actual answer, and I will keep right on asking it.

Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 09:41:33 PM
Again, where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights does it state what you saying?

You keep avoiding an actual answer, and I will keep right on asking it.

Well flint i have answered your question 3 or 4 times already.  It appears that you have no response to my reply and can't dispute what i am saying.  IF you want an answer ask a question not a general blanket statement.

Until then, i'll keep referring you to my last half a dozen posts.

No, Steve, you never have answered my question.  You and Billy do an awful lot of throwing out some positional statement that is a complete contradition to the unwavering language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Then when you are called out on it, you never do answer when asked where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights does it state your position.  I know the language of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other 17 admendments.  Apparently you and Billy do not, because you never state where in the Founding Documents the language is to back up your assertations.

I'm done.  You're never going to answer, because either you know you're wrong, or because you refuse to acknowledge that the Constitution and all 27 admendments to it constitute a 'living document', open to interpretation.  And it is not for you or I to accomplish said interpretation; that duty is exclusively delegated to one, and only one, entity - the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Goodnight, and Goodbye for a few days.

From the Center

Flint

Quote from: flintauqua on November 01, 2009, 11:25:38 PM
No, Steve, you never have answered my question.  You and Billy do an awful lot of throwing out some positional statement that is a complete contradition to the unwavering language of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.  Then when you are called out on it, you never do answer when asked where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights does it state your position.  I know the language of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the other 17 admendments.  Apparently you and Billy do not, because you never state where in the Founding Documents the language is to back up your assertations.

I'm done.  You're never going to answer, because either you know you're wrong, or because you refuse to acknowledge that the Constitution and all 27 admendments to it constitute a 'living document', open to interpretation.  And it is not for you or I to accomplish said interpretation; that duty is exclusively delegated to one, and only one, entity - the Supreme Court of the United States of America.

Goodnight, and Goodbye for a few days.

From the Center

Flint

Well by your statement that the constitution is a living document, shows your lack of education in Government and Constitutional issues.  Even if i spell it out for you and give you a course on the Constitution, you would not be willing to learn.  You claim centrist, you display leftist.

Constitutional law is one tough course!

Quote from: Diane Amberg on November 02, 2009, 09:10:25 AM
Constitutional law is one tough course!

Yes it is and the one thing that people cannot grasp for some reason is that the Constitution pertains to the Federal level and that the Federal Government does not have citizens under it. 

I understood Varmits and Steve's answers.. But I don't think Flint did..because it wasn't what he wanted to hear maybe??
Its a wide course of range in answering a question pertaining to something pertaining to the Constitution.. the  Bible.. etc.. Everyone wants its answered in the way that they see or think the answer should be.  But I thought that they answered it very well..
But what do I know.. ::)  I'm just a mere insane blond who's crazy as a pet coon who is tainted with McDonald blood... LOL 

( That WILL cost you Jarhead.. sooner or later... and you know that..........  **hee hee hee**

Although my daddy DID have a pet coon growing up.......and it was a bit on the crazy side..
.HHHmmmmmmm :-\

Quote from: Teresa on November 02, 2009, 10:02:26 AM
I understood Varmits and Steve's answers.. But I don't think Flint did..because it wasn't what he wanted to hear maybe??
Its a wide course of range in answering a question pertaining to something pertaining to the Constitution.. the  Bible.. etc.. Everyone wants its answered in the way that they see or think the answer should be.  But I thought that they answered it very well..
But what do I know.. ::)  I'm just a mere insane blond who's crazy as a pet coon who is tainted with McDonald blood... LOL 

( That WILL cost you Jarhead.. sooner or later... and you know that..........  **hee hee hee**

Although my daddy DID have a pet coon growing up.......and it was a bit on the crazy side..
.HHHmmmmmmm :-\

Thank You!  I don't care if your a crazy blond petting mcdonalds blood coon or whatever you said lol.

Quote from: Anmar on November 01, 2009, 08:38:10 PM
I think it's a farce that someone can come here, and answer yes to these questions....

4. You might be a Constitutionalist if you think that taking away people's liberties in the name of security is not patriotic, nor does it make the country more secure.

18. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops should never serve under foreign commanders or wear the uniform or insignia of the United Nations, and that they must never submit to illegal orders, such as turning their weapons against American citizens, or confiscating the guns of U.S. citizens.

32. You might be a Constitutionalist if you believe that U.S. troops are not the world's policemen, that they are not "nation-builders," and that their purpose is only to defend American lives and property, not to be the enforcement arm of international commercial interests or global elitists.

35. You might be a Constitutionalist if you oppose sending billions of taxpayer dollars as foreign aid; the U.S. State Department meddling into the private affairs of foreign countries; and ubiquitous foreign entanglements that require vast sums of money, create animosity and hostility towards us, and expose us to foreign wars and conflicts in which we have no national interest.

And then in the same thread, express viewpoints contrary to every one of those questions.  Instead of recognizing the double talk or realizing that there are people amongst you who believe its ok for foreigners influencing our government, you all pat him on the back and you jump on the people who are trying to wake you all up.

When have I advocated taking away an American citizens rights in the name of liberty?

First of all, our troops have NEVER worn the uniform of the united nations.  They may have worn the patch and had foreign commanders in charge of operations, but their orders come from american military commanders.  Having served in such situations, I speak from experience, where did you get your knowledge on the subject?

I never stated that I believe our military should act as "nation builders".  I said that the "nation building" you speak of is part of our "hearts and minds" philosophy, not that I agree with it.

As for #35.  That is so blatantly anti-Isreal its not funny.  No to mention the fact that the way it is worded.  According to the language, we should not help our allies in any way.  Which given the state of world affairs would not only be profoundly stupid, but damn near suicidal.  

Quote from: Diane Amberg on November 02, 2009, 09:10:25 AM
Constitutional law is one tough course!

Yeah, that's why I took it twice, once at Wichita State and again at Kansas State.  Not because I had too, but because I wanted to. Got an A both times.  

One professor was a strict constructionist, the other was a contextualist.  It's nice to know more than one point of view on something as important as the Constitution.

Others just don't get it.

Quote from: flintauqua on November 02, 2009, 07:53:14 PM

Quote from: Diane Amberg on November 02, 2009, 09:10:25 AM
Constitutional law is one tough course!

Yeah, that's why I took it twice, once at Wichita State and again at Kansas State.  Not because I had too, but because I wanted to. Got an A both times. 

One professor was a strict constructionist, the other was a contextualist.  It's nice to know more than one point of view on something as important as the Constitution.

Other's just don't get it.

Well then Good for you!  Since you took the course twice then you should know that there is no such thing as a US Citizen then. :)

Quote from: flintauqua on November 02, 2009, 07:53:14 PM

Quote from: Diane Amberg on November 02, 2009, 09:10:25 AM
Constitutional law is one tough course!

Yeah, that's why I took it twice, once at Wichita State and again at Kansas State.  Not because I had too, but because I wanted to. Got an A both times.  

One professor was a strict constructionist, the other was a contextualist.  It's nice to know more than one point of view on something as important as the Constitution.

Other's just don't get it.

I wasn't aware that they taught Constitutional Law at WSU.  They're not particularly the school one would think of when studying law.