Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: loco on March 09, 2007, 10:13:39 AM
-
U.S. Veteran Dispatch
January 2007
Democrat Keith Ellison is now officially the first Muslim United States congressman. True to his pledge, he placed his hand on the Quran, the Muslim book of jihad and pledged his allegiance to the United States during his ceremonial swearing-in.
Capitol Hill staff said Ellison's swearing-in photo opportunity drew more media than they had ever seen in the history of the U.S. House. Ellison represents the 5th Congressional District of Minnesota.
The Quran Ellison used was no ordinary book. It once belonged to Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States and one of America's founding fathers. Ellison borrowed it from the Rare Book Section of the Library of Congress. It was one of the 6,500 Jefferson books archived in the library.
Ellison, who was born in Detroit and converted to Islam while in college, said he chose to use Jefferson's Quran because it showed that "a visionary like Jefferson" believed that wisdom could be gleaned from many sources.
There is no doubt Ellison was right about Jefferson believing wisdom could be "gleaned" from the Muslim Quran. At the time Jefferson owned the book, he needed to know everything possible about Muslims because he was about to advocate war against the Islamic "Barbary" states of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia and Tripoli.
Ellison's use of Jefferson's Quran as a prop illuminates a subject once well-known in the history of the United States, but, which today, is mostly forgotten - the Muslim pirate slavers who over many centuries enslaved millions of Africans and tens of thousands of Christian Europeans and Americans in the Islamic "Barbary" states.
Over the course of 10 centuries, Muslim pirates cruised the African and Mediterranean coastline, pillaging villages and seizing slaves.
The taking of slaves in pre-dawn raids on unsuspecting coastal villages had a high casualty rate. It was typical of Muslim raiders to kill off as many of the "non-Muslim" older men and women as possible so the preferred "booty" of only young women and children could be collected.
Young non-Muslim women were targeted because of their value as concubines in Islamic markets. Islamic law provides for the sexual interests of Muslim men by allowing them to take as many as four wives at one time and to have as many concubines as their fortunes allow.
Boys, as young as 9 or 10 years old, were often mutilated to create eunuchs who would bring higher prices in the slave markets of the Middle East. Muslim slave traders created "eunuch stations" along major African slave routes so the necessary surgery could be performed. It was estimated that only a small number of the boys subjected to the mutilation survived after the surgery.
When American colonists rebelled against British rule in 1776, American merchant ships lost Royal Navy protection. With no American Navy for protection, American ships were attacked and their Christian crews enslaved by Muslim pirates operating under the control of the "Dey of Algiers"--an Islamist warlord ruling Algeria.
Because American commerce in the Mediterranean was being destroyed by the pirates, the Continental Congress agreed in 1784 to negotiate treaties with the four Barbary States. Congress appointed a special commission consisting of John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, to oversee the negotiations.
Lacking the ability to protect its merchant ships in the Mediterranean, the new America government tried to appease the Muslim slavers by agreeing to pay tribute and ransoms in order to retrieve seized American ships and buy the freedom of enslaved sailors.
Adams argued in favor of paying tribute as the cheapest way to get American commerce in the Mediterranean moving again. Jefferson was opposed. He believed there would be no end to the demands for tribute and wanted matters settled "through the medium of war." He proposed a league of trading nations to force an end to Muslim piracy.
In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.
The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.
During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.
In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."
For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800.
Not long after Jefferson's inauguration as president in 1801, he dispatched a group of frigates to defend American interests in the Mediterranean, and informed Congress.
Declaring that America was going to spend "millions for defense but not one cent for tribute," Jefferson pressed the issue by deploying American Marines and many of America's best warships to the Muslim Barbary Coast.
The USS Constitution, USS Constellation, USS Philadelphia, USS Chesapeake, USS Argus, USS Syren and USS Intrepid all saw action.
In 1805, American Marines marched across the desert from Egypt into Tripolitania, forcing the surrender of Tripoli and the freeing of all American slaves.
During the Jefferson administration, the Muslim Barbary States, crumbling as a result of intense American naval bombardment and on shore raids by Marines, finally officially agreed to abandon slavery and piracy.
Jefferson's victory over the Muslims lives on today in the Marine Hymn, with the line, "From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli, We fight our country's battles in the air, on land and sea."
It wasn't until 1815 that the problem was fully settled by the total defeat of all the Muslim slave trading pirates.
Jefferson had been right. The "medium of war" was the only way to put and end to the Muslim problem. Mr. Ellison was right about Jefferson. He was a "visionary" wise enough to read and learn about the enemy from their own Muslim book of jihad.
http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm
-
"Book of jihad", oh brother!
-
What I like is how they try and divert the blame for slavery. Slavery in the old world was far different from new world(western) slavery.
-
The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.
here's some interesting historical perspective from MSN via The Nation:
In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:
"As the Government of the United States... is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen -- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against 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."
This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/04/opinion/main671823.shtml
-
here's some interesting historical perspective from MSN via The Nation:
In 1797 our government concluded a "Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, or Barbary," now known simply as the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 of the treaty contains these words:
"As the Government of the United States... is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion -- as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Musselmen -- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against 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."
This document was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and President John Adams. It was then sent to the Senate for ratification; the vote was unanimous. It is worth pointing out that although this was the 339th time a recorded vote had been required by the Senate, it was only the third unanimous vote in the Senate's history. There is no record of debate or dissent. The text of the treaty was printed in full in the Philadelphia Gazette and in two New York papers, but there were no screams of outrage, as one might expect today
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/02/04/opinion/main671823.shtml
I did not know this... It is very interesting and shows what the country truly was founded upon.
Once again, it shows that the Christian right has hi-jacked our government... It started back in the early part of the 20th century and carries on today.
-
Here's another quote from Jefferson from the same article:
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
-
What I like is how they try and divert the blame for slavery. Slavery in the old world was far different from new world(western) slavery.
Muslim slavery has been going on since it's interception by a pig shagger, and continues to this very day.
-
Muslim slavery has been going on since it's interception by a pig shagger, and continues to this very day.
Of course, but they act as though Europe and the states weren't enslaving people during the conflicts with the barbary states. And keep in mind old world slavery = different from western slavery.
-
Of course, but they act as though Europe and the states weren't enslaving people during the conflicts with the barbary states. And keep in mind old world slavery = different from western slavery.
Of course, but africans themselves act as though they didn't sell themselves out to Britain and the US. Western world ended slavery, still happening in the muhammedan world tho... go figure, the religion of peace spreading "peace". :-\
-
I did not know this... It is very interesting and shows what the country truly was founded upon.
Once again, it shows that the Christian right has hi-jacked our government... It started back in the early part of the 20th century and carries on today.
There is a lot you don't know about your own History, American.
AMERICA WAS FOUNDED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES
Treaty of Tripoli
by David Barton
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, specifically article XI, is commonly misused in editorial columns, articles, as well as in other areas of the media, both Christian and secular. We have received numerous questions from people who have been misled by the claims that are being made, namely, that America was not founded as a Christian nation. Advocates of this idea use the Treaty of Tripoli as the foundation of their entire argument, and we believe you deserve to know the truth regarding this often misused document. The following is an excerpt from David Barton’s book Original Intent:
To determine whether the "Founding Fathers" were generally atheists, agnostics, and deists, one must first define those terms. An "atheist" is one who professes to believe that there is no God;1 an "agnostic" is one who professes that nothing can be known beyond what is visible and tangible;2 and a "deist" is one who believes in an impersonal God who is no longer involved with mankind. (In other words, a "deist" embraces the "clockmaker theory" 3 that there was a God who made the universe and wound it up like a clock; however, it now runs of its own volition; the clockmaker is gone and therefore does not respond to man.) Today the terms "atheist," "agnostic," and "deist" have been used together so often that their meanings have almost become synonymous. In fact, many dictionaries list these words as synonym.4
Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attempting to prove that the Founders were irreligious.5 One of the quotes they set forth is the following:
The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion.GEORGE WASHINGTON
The 1797 Treaty of Tripoli is the source of Washington’s supposed statement. Is this statement accurate? Did this prominent Founder truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of its source. That treaty, one of several with Tripoli, was negotiated during the "Barbary Powers Conflict," which began shortly after the Revolutionary War and continued through the Presidencies of Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.6 The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States). In 1801, Tripoli even declared war against the United States,7 thus constituting America’s first official war as an established independent nation. Throughout this long conflict, the four Barbary Powers regularly attacked undefended American merchant ships. Not only were their cargoes easy prey but the Barbary Powers were also capturing and enslaving "Christian" seamen8 in retaliation for what had been done to them by the "Christians" of previous centuries (e.g., the Crusades and Ferdinand and Isabella’s expulsion of Muslims from Granada9). In an attempt to secure a release of captured seamen and a guarantee of unmolested shipping in the Mediterranean, President Washington dispatched envoys to negotiate treaties with the Barbary nations.10(Concurrently, he encouraged the construction of American naval warships11 to defend the shipping and confront the Barbary "pirates"—a plan not seriously pursued until President John Adams created a separate Department of the Navy in 1798.) The American envoys negotiated numerous treaties of "Peace and Amity" 12 with the Muslim Barbary nations to ensure "protection" of American commercial ships sailing in the Mediterranean.13 However, the terms of the treaty frequently were unfavorable to America, either requiring her to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars of "tribute" (i.e., official extortion) to each country to receive a "guarantee" of safety or to offer other "considerations" (e.g., providing a warship as a "gift" to Tripoli,14 a "gift" frigate to Algiers,15 paying $525,000 to ransom captured American seamen from Algiers,16 etc.). The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims.17 Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:
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 [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.18
This article may be read in two manners. It may, as its critics do, be concluded after the clause "Christian religion"; or it may be read in its entirety and concluded when the punctuation so indicates. But even if shortened and cut abruptly ("the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion"), this is not an untrue statement since it is referring to the federal government. Recall that while the Founders themselves openly described America as a Christian nation, they did include a constitutional prohibition against a federal establishment; religion was a matter left solely to the individual States. Therefore, if the article is read as a declaration that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, such a statement is not a repudiation of the fact that America was considered a Christian nation. Reading the clause of the treaty in its entirety also fails to weaken this fact. Article XI simply distinguished America from those historical strains of European Christianity which held an inherent hatred of Muslims; it simply assured the Muslims that the United States was not a Christian nation like those of previous centuries (with whose practices the Muslims were very familiar) and thus would not undertake a religious holy war against them. This latter reading is, in fact, supported by the attitude prevalent among numerous American leaders. The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," 19 by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 20 and by John Adams as "rational." 21 A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:
The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.22
Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:
Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown—general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!23
Those who attribute the Treaty of Tripoli quote to George Washington make two mistakes. The first is that no statement in it can be attributed to Washington (the treaty did not arrive in America until months after he left office); Washington never saw the treaty; it was not his work; no statement in it can be ascribed to him. The second mistake is to divorce a single clause of the treaty from the remainder which provides its context. It would also be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed or assented to any provision which repudiated Christianity. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:
The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. 24
Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature. 25
Adams’ own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation. Additionally, the writings of General William Eaton, a major figure in the Barbary Powers conflict, provide even more irrefutable testimony of how the conflict was viewed at that time. Eaton was first appointed by President John Adams as "Consul to Tunis," and President Thomas Jefferson later advanced him to the position of "U. S. Naval Agent to the Barbary States," authorizing him to lead a military expedition against Tripoli. Eaton’s official correspondence during his service confirms that the conflict was a Muslim war against a Christian America. For example, when writing to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, Eaton apprised him of why the Muslims would be such dedicated foes:
Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims’] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful.26 Eaton later complained that after Jefferson had approved his plan for military action, he sent him the obsolete warship "Hero." Eaton reported the impression of America made upon the Tunis Muslims when they saw the old warship and its few cannons:
[T]he weak, the crazy situation of the vessel and equipage [armaments] tended to confirm an opinion long since conceived and never fairly controverted among the Tunisians, that the Americans are a feeble sect of Christians.27
In a later letter to Pickering, Eaton reported how pleased one Barbary ruler had been when he received the extortion compensations from America which had been promised him in one of the treaties:
He said, "To speak truly and candidly . . . . we must acknowledge to you that we have never received articles of the kind of so excellent a quality from any Christian nation." 28
When John Marshall became the new Secretary of State, Eaton informed him:
It is a maxim of the Barbary States, that "The Christians who would be on good terms with them must fight well or pay well." 29 And when General Eaton finally commenced his military action against Tripoli, his personal journal noted:
April 8th. We find it almost impossible to inspire these wild bigots with confidence in us or to persuade them that, being Christians, we can be otherwise than enemies to Musselmen. We have a difficult undertaking!30 May 23rd. Hassien Bey, the commander in chief of the enemy’s forces, has offered by private insinuation for my head six thousand dollars and double the sum for me a prisoner; and $30 per head for Christians. Why don’t he come and take it?31
Shortly after the military excursion against Tripoli was successfully terminated, its account was written and published. Even the title of the book bears witness to the nature of the conflict:
The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton . . . commander of the Christian and Other Forces . . . which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between The United States and The Regency of Tripoli32
The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people. (Chapter 16 of Original Intent will provide numerous additional current examples of historical revisionism.)
Endnotes
1. American Heritage Dictionary, 2nd College Edition, s.v. "atheism."
2. Id., s.v. "agnostic."
3. Id., s.v. "deism"; see also American College Dictionary (1947), s.v. "deism."
4. Webster’s New World Dictionary of the American Language (1964), see synonym for "deist"; Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary(1963), see synonym for "atheism"; The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia(1895), Vol. I, see synonym for "atheist"; Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary of the English Language (1966), see synonyms for "skeptic."
5. Society of Separationists, "Did you know that these great American thinkers all rejected Christianity?" (Austin, TX: American Atheist Center); see also Los Angeles Times, August 3, 1995, p. B-9, "America’s Unchristian Beginnings," Steven Morris.
6.Naval Documents Related to the United States Wars with the Barbary Powers, Claude A. Swanson, editor (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. I, p. V.
7. Glen Tucker,Dawn Like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the Birth of the U. S. Navy (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1963), p. 127.
8. A General View of the Rise, Progress, and Brilliant Achievements of the American Navy, Down to the Present Time(Brooklyn, 1828), pp. 70-71.
9. Tucker, p. 50.
10. President Washington selected Col. David Humphreys in 1793 as sole commissioner of Algerian affairs to negotiate treaties with Algeria, Tripoli and Tunis. He also appointed Joseph Donaldson, Jr., as Consul to Tunis and Tripoli. In February of 1796, Humphreys delegated power to Donaldson and/or Joel Barlow to form treaties. James Simpson, U. S. Consul to Gibraltar, was dispatched to renew the treaty with Morocco in 1795. On October 8, 1796, Barlow commissioned Richard O’Brien to negotiate the treaty of peace with Tripoli. See, for example, Ray W. Irwin, The Diplomatic Relations of the United States with the Barbary Powers (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1931), p. 84.
11. J. Fenimore Cooper,The History of the Navy of the United States of America (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1847), pp. 123-124; see also A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents: 1789-1897, James D. Richardson, editor (Washington, D. C.: Published by Authority of Congress, 1899), Vol. I, pp. 201-202, from Washington’s Eighth Annual Address of December 7, 1796.
12. See, for example, the treaty with Morocco: ratified by the United States on July 18, 1787. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America: 1776-1949, Charles I. Bevans, editor (Washington, D. C.: Department of State, 1968-1976), Vol. IX, pp. 1278-1285; Algiers: concluded September 5, 1795; ratified by the U. S. Senate March 2, 1796; see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity" concluded June 30 and July 6, 1815; proclaimed December 26, 1815, Treaties and Conventions Concluded Between the United States of America and Other Powers Since July 4, 1776 (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1889), pp. 1-15; Tripoli: concluded November 4, 1796; ratified June 10, 1797; see also, "Treaty of Peace and Amity" concluded June 4, 1805; ratification advised by the U. S. Senate April 12, 1806. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William M. Malloy, editor (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1785-1793; Tunis: concluded August 1797; ratification advised by the Senate, with amendments, March 6, 1798; alterations concluded March 26, 1799; ratification again advised by the Senate December 24, 1799. Treaties, Conventions, International Acts, Protocols and Agreements between the United States of America and Other Powers: 1776-1909, William M. Malloy, editor (Washington, D. C.: Government Printing Office, 1910), Vol. II, pp. 1794-1799.
13. Gardner W. Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1905), pp. 33, 45, 56, 60.
14. Allen, p. 66.
15. Allen, p. 57.
16. Allen, p. 56.
17. (See general bibliographic information from footnote 17 for each of these references)Morocco: see Articles 10, 11, 17, and 24; Algiers: See Treaty of 1795, Article 17, and Treaty of 1815, Article 17; Tripoli: See Treaty of 1796, Article 11, and Treaty of 1805, Article 14; Tunis: See forward to Treaty.
18. Acts Passed at the First Session of the Fifth Congress of the United States of America (Philadelphia: William Ross, 1797), pp. 43-44.
19. John Jay, Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p. 491, Address to the Annual Meeting of the American Bible Society, May 8, 1823.
20. John Quincy Adams,An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 17.
21. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. IX, p. 121, in a speech to both houses of Congress, November 23, 1797.
22 Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 339.
23. Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and In favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1844), p. 52.
24. John Adams, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 407, to Thomas Jefferson on July 3, 1786.
25. John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
26. Charles Prentiss, The Life of the Late Gen. William Eaton: Several Years an Officer in the United States’ Army Consul at the Regency of Tunis on the Coast of Barbary, and Commander of the Christian and Other Forces that Marched from Egypt Through the Desert of Barca, in 1805, and Conquered the City of Derne, Which Led to the Treaty of Peace Between the United States and the Regency of Tripoli (Brookfield: Merriam & Company, 1813), pp. 92-93, from General Eaton to Timothy Pickering, June 15, 1799.
27. Prentiss, p. 146, from General Eaton to Mr. Smith, June 27, 1800.
28. Prentiss, p. 150, from General Eaton to Timothy Pickering on July 4, 1800.
29. Prentiss, p. 185, from General Eaton to General John Marshall, September 2, 1800.
30. Prentiss, p. 325, from Eaton’s journal, April 8, 1805.
31. Prentiss, p. 334, from Eaton’s journal, May 23, 1805.
32. Prentiss.
-
John Jay, one of the framers of the Constitution, was appointed by George Washington in 1789 to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (and later served two terms as governor of New York). He wrote, in a private letter(1797) to clergyman Jedidiah Morse:
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.
It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world. Whatever may be the virtue, discernment, and industry of the writers, I am persuaded that truth and error (though in different degrees) will imperceptibly become and remain mixed and blended until they shall be separated forever by the great and last refining fire."
-
John Adams
Letter to Zabdiel Adams, 21 June 1776:
Statesmen, my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty.
Letter to Abigail Adams, 3 July 1776:
The second day of July, 1776, will be the most memorable epocha in the history of America. I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated by succeeding generations as the great anniversary festival. It ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with pomp and parade, with shows, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward for evermore.
Diary, 26 July 1796:
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity, and humanity.
Address to the Military, 11 October 1798:
We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other.
-
Benjamin Franklin
Letter to Messrs, the Abbes Chalut, and Arnaud, 17 April 1787:
Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become more corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.
Constitutional Convention, 1787:
In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a superintending Providence in our favor.… and have we not forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we imagine we no longer need His assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: “that God governs in the affairs of man.” And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? …
I believe farther that this [new government under the Constitution] is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other.
-
Thomas Jefferson
Notes on Virginia, 1782:
God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.
-
George Washington
Circular letter of farewell to the Army, 8 June 1783:
I now make it my earnest prayer, that God would have you, and the State over which you preside, in his holy protection, that he would incline the hearts of the Citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to Government, to entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another, for their fellow Citizens of the United States at large, and particularly for their brethren who have served in the Field, and finally, that he would most graciously be pleased to dispose us all, to do Justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that Charity, humility and pacific temper of mind, which were the Characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed Religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy Nation.
First Inaugural Address, 30 April 1789:
No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.
First Inaugural Address, 30 April 1789:
The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained.
Letter to General Assembly of Presbyterian Churches, May 1789:
While all men within our territories are protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of their consciences; it is rationally expected from them in return, that they will be emulous of evincing the sanctity of their professions by the innocence of their lives, and the beneficence of their actions: for no man, who is profligate in his morals, or a bad member of the civil community, can possibly be a true Christian, or a credit to his own religious society.
Farewell Address, 1796:
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens.… And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.… Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
-
There is a lot you don't know about your own History, American.
AMERICA WAS FOUNDED UPON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES
Treaty of Tripoli
by David Barton
Why not show the source of this article which is this website: www.wallbuilders.com
Here is their stated mission:
WallBuilders’ goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.
Gee - I wonder why I'm not surprised.
You seem like you know a lot about history. Maybe you can explain why Jefferson felt the need to write his own version of the bible. From what I've read it seems that Jefferson admired what he saw as the teachings of Jesus but did not in any way believe in his divinity. He also warned against the corruptions of Christianity.
This is cut and paste from Wikipedia but the same info can be found in many other places:
The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to glean the teachings of Jesus from the Christian Gospels. Jefferson wished to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1] In essence, Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jesus' divinity, the Trinity, resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible..[
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible
Anyway, isn't this a political message board?
How can anyone debate a religious belief? Religion requires "faith" to patch of all the areas of inconsistency and contradiction. My personal belief is that fervent, fundamentalist religious belief (fill in whatever religion you like) is equivalent to having a form of mental illness (IMO)
-
btw - I have no doubt that some politicians both past and present have been "true believers" but there's also no doubt that every politician knows that, in order to get elected, he has to pander to certain groups, and even occassionally contradict his own stated beliefs
-
I think the point here is that the muslim religion is a worthless and debased relgion built on hate and intolerance..not "America sucks"
-
Where on this thread has anyone written or implied that "America Sucks"?
-
Straw Man, you are a self proclaimed pathological liar.
Add Liar to your resume. Not surprising seeing how you defend your beloved fake news network, CNN.
yep, I was pretending not to be aware of what you might find
Yep, you're are now a self proclaimed liar. Good for you. That'll help your impeccable credibility on this board.
yep, maybe next time when I say I'm not aware of something and ask you to post it you'll figure out that I'm setting you up
And you are a pervert too:
just like I do discuss how often they bone their wives (or husbands).
(http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=640432.0;attach=751949;image)
Everyone here already knew that you are a pervert, constantly inquiring into my whereabouts, and continuously posting photos of bloodied bodies of murdered girls. You probably whack off to those photos on a regular basis, you sick SOB.
http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=511229.msg8940366#msg8940366
You denied many times being from Venezuela
I'm still waiting for you to show us the "many times" that I have "denied being from Venezuela", you pathological liar.
-
Why not show the source of this article which is this website: www.wallbuilders.com
Here is their stated mission:
WallBuilders’ goal is to exert a direct and positive influence in government, education, and the family by (1) educating the nation concerning the Godly foundation of our country; (2) providing information to federal, state, and local officials as they develop public policies which reflect Biblical values; and (3) encouraging Christians to be involved in the civic arena.
And how is this bad for America?
What about the quotes from your Founding Fathers? I didn't get those from wallbuilders.com. You can find those in the original documents.
You seem like you know a lot about history. Maybe you can explain why Jefferson felt the need to write his own version of the bible. From what I've read it seems that Jefferson admired what he saw as the teachings of Jesus but did not in any way believe in his divinity. He also warned against the corruptions of Christianity.
This is cut and paste from Wikipedia but the same info can be found in many other places:
The Jefferson Bible, or The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth as it is formally titled, was an attempt by Thomas Jefferson to glean the teachings of Jesus from the Christian Gospels. Jefferson wished to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by the Four Evangelists.[1] In essence, Thomas Jefferson did not believe in Jesus' divinity, the Trinity, resurrection, miracles, or any other supernatural aspect described in the Bible..[
Without arguing with this, even if it were true that Jefferson was not a Christian, it looks like he held Christian principles at very high esteem.
Anyway, isn't this a political message board?
That's what I'm saying. The original article is political, then you posted your " interesting historical perspective from MSN via The Nation:" to point out the American is "not a Christian nation." Wish you would have posted that on the religion board. However, we can't deny that politics are influenced by religion.
-
And how is this bad for America?
I think it's bad for any country to be run, in part or in whole, based on belief in a fable.
If one chooses to believe it as "truth" and conduct their own life based on this then I think one should be free to do so, provided that belief doesn't compell (or require) said person to impose their beliefs onto others or society at large.
I like Jefferson's simple way of addressing this issue:
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I would say more but I need to go pay homage to the true religious belief of this country which is the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar.
-
I think it's bad for any country to be run, in part or in whole, based on belief in a fable.
If one chooses to believe it as "truth" and conduct their own life based on this then I think one should be free to do so, provided that belief doesn't compell (or require) said person to impose their beliefs onto others or society at large.
I like Jefferson's simple way of addressing this issue:
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I would say more but I need to go pay homage to the true religious belief of this country which is the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar.
I respect your opinion, but it seems your founding fathers would disagree.
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world" - John Jay
And they built a heck of a country with a heck of a form of government. Same form of government for 200+ years, while much older countries like France can't stick to a single form of government for too long. The current form of government in France has been around for only what, 49 years?
-
Does it really matter what TJ learned from the Muslim book of Jihad?
It doesn't change the fact that over the world there are millions of muslims who would wipe out all infidels and jews if they could at the drop of a hat.
-
I respect your opinion, but it seems your founding fathers would disagree.
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world" - John Jay
And they built a heck of a country with a heck of a form of government. Same form of government for 200+ years, while much older countries like France can't stick to a single form of government for too long. The current form of government in France has been around for only what, 49 years?
John Day? He was born before this country was even created... A printer born in the 1500s, what the heck does John Day have to do with anything?
Oh, and you know he fled England to avoid religious persecution right?
In God We Trust wasn't even thought of until 1861... so please don't show printed money as a sign that the founding fathers supported religion in government... It just was not the case.
-
John Day? He was born before this country was even created... A printer born in the 1500s, what the heck does John Day have to do with anything?
Not John Day, John Jay:
John Jay(December 12, 1745 – May 17, 1829) was an American politician, statesman, revolutionary, diplomat, and jurist. Considered one of the "founding fathers" of the United States,
one of the framers of the Constitution, was appointed by George Washington in 1789 to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (and later served two terms as governor of New York).
Oh, and you know he fled England to avoid religious persecution right?
Yes, many protestants fled Europe to avoid religious persecution from the Roman Catholic Church.
In God We Trust wasn't even thought of until 1861... so please don't show printed money as a sign that the founding fathers supported religion in government... It just was not the case.
I know. Relax. I only posted the printed money as a response, in good fun, to Straw Man's quote below. ;D
I would say more but I need to go pay homage to the true religious belief of this country which is the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar.
-
Not John Day, John Jay:
John Jay, one of the framers of the Constitution, was appointed by George Washington in 1789 to be the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States (and later served two terms as governor of New York).
Ah... I see... He also proposed several amendments to the religious tolerance clause, restricting the rights of Catholics unless they swore allegiance to the state superceding any allegiance to their Church or Pope.
That sounds like the opposite of what you describe.
Then again, he disliked Catholics as was normal for the time.
So it's OK to follow God, but not if you're a Catholic.
The guy sounds like a hypocrite.
-
Ah... I see... He also proposed several amendments to the religious tolerance clause, restricting the rights of Catholics unless they swore allegiance to the state superceding any allegiance to their Church or Pope.
A good thing he did.
That sounds like the opposite of what you describe.
Then again, he disliked Catholics as was normal for the time.
What? How is that the opposite of what I described? Did I not say
"Yes, many protestants fled Europe to avoid religious persecution from the Roman Catholic Church." ?
So it's OK to follow God, but not if you're a Catholic.
The guy sounds like a hypocrite.
You call your own founding fathers hypocrites? Okay. ::)
-
I think it's bad for any country to be run, in part or in whole, based on belief in a fable.
If one chooses to believe it as "truth" and conduct their own life based on this then I think one should be free to do so, provided that belief doesn't compell (or require) said person to impose their beliefs onto others or society at large.
I like Jefferson's simple way of addressing this issue:
"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."
I would say more but I need to go pay homage to the true religious belief of this country which is the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar.
What about the fact that millions in this country believe in God? Many of those people serve in public office. In fact, we (the people) will not put a person in high public office who does not have some measure of religious faith.
I don't believe religious doctrine can or should control how we run the country, but you cannot expect people to check their personal beliefs at the door either. We bring all of our life experiences, including our faith, to the table, whether we acknowledge it or not.
-
Ah... I see... He also proposed several amendments to the religious tolerance clause, restricting the rights of Catholics unless they swore allegiance to the state superceding any allegiance to their Church or Pope.
That sounds like the opposite of what you describe.
Then again, he disliked Catholics as was normal for the time.
So it's OK to follow God, but not if you're a Catholic.
The guy sounds like a hypocrite.
"The Christianity practiced in America was described by John Jay as "wise and virtuous," 19
by John Quincy Adams as "civilized," 20
and by John Adams as "rational." 21
A clear distinction was drawn between American Christianity and that of Europe in earlier centuries. As Noah Webster explained:
The ecclesiastical establishments of Europe which serve to support tyrannical governments are not the Christian religion but abuses and corruptions of it.22
Daniel Webster similarly explained that American Christianity was:
Christianity to which the sword and the fagot [burning stake or hot branding iron] are unknown—general tolerant Christianity is the law of the land!23"
Endnotes
19. John Jay, Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry Johnston, editor (New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1893), Vol. IV, p. 491, Address to the Annual Meeting of the American Bible Society, May 8, 1823.
20. John Quincy Adams,An Oration Delivered Before the Inhabitants of the Town of Newburyport at Their Request on the Sixty-First Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (Newburyport: Charles Whipple, 1837), p. 17.
21. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1856), Vol. IX, p. 121, in a speech to both houses of Congress, November 23, 1797.
22 Noah Webster, History of the United States (New Haven: Durrie & Peck, 1832), p. 339.
23. Daniel Webster, Mr. Webster’s Speech in Defence of the Christian Ministry and In favor of the Religious Instruction of the Young. Delivered in the Supreme Court of the United States, February 10, 1844, in the Case of Stephen Girard’s Will (Washington: Gales and Seaton, 1844), p. 52.
-
A good thing he did.
What? How is that the opposite of what I described? Did I not say
"Yes, many protestants fled Europe to avoid religious persecution from the Roman Catholic Church." ?
You call your own founding fathers hypocrites? Okay. ::)
How is that good?
Yes, he's a hypocrite because he's saying religious freedom if you're him and God this God that... unless you're Catholic.
That is hypocritical.
-
How is that good?
Yes, he's a hypocrite because he's saying religious freedom if you're him and God this God that... unless you're Catholic.
That is hypocritical.
Read my post above.
-
Read my post above.
All religions are in themselves Tyrannical...
They are all wielding power without anyone to answer to except the invisible spaghetti monster in the sky.
-
All religions are in themselves Tyrannical...
They are all wielding power without anyone to answer to except the invisible spaghetti monster in the sky.
Read the life and teachings of Jesus Christ in the Bible. Then tell me if that's tyrannical.
-
Read the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. Then tell me if that tyrannical.
Jesus didn't even exist!
I have gotten into this a billion times... There was no Jesus. No documents discuss him until even 150 years after his supposed death... I could go on and on. Let's just say for a second he did....
Just because Jesus talked about goodness and harmony does not mean that Religion has not perverted his sayings to mean otherwise.
I'm not against faith... but "religion", organized religion, is a sham.
-
I respect your opinion, but it seems your founding fathers would disagree.
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. It is to be regretted, but so I believe the fact to be, that except the Bible there is not a true history in the world" - John Jay
you've got one quote from one person and that proves your position? I'm a bit pressed for time but I dig up a contrary quote from another founding father later and I guess that will prove that it's not true.
BTW - when did the founding fathers add "in God We Trust" to US currency.
Wait - who are the founding fathers again - shouldn't we clarify that too.
Or maybe we can just look at the Constitution. Do you find any mention of Jesus or God
-
Read the life and teachings of Jesus Christ in the Bible. Then tell me if that's tyrannical.
it's a story in a book - nothing more
Of course - that's my opinion and luckily in the US one is entitled to their own opinion on this subject
-
you've got one quote from one person and that proves your position? I'm a bit pressed for time but I dig up a contrary quote from another founding father later and I guess that will prove that it's not true.
No. I was repeating only one quote that I had already posted. Did you miss all of the quotes from all of those guys above? I have more if you want me to go on.
BTW - when did the founding fathers add "in God We Trust" to US currency.
I posted that only in response to your quote below. It's just humor, so relax. ;D
I would say more but I need to go pay homage to the true religious belief of this country which is the pursuit of the Almighty Dollar.
-
Jesus didn't even exist!
I have gotten into this a billion times... There was no Jesus. No documents discuss him until even 150 years after his supposed death... I could go on and on.
Hey man, even if you don't believe in God, Jesus did exist. He is a historical figure, even if you don't believe that he is the Son of God. None of the following came from the Bible and their sources are NOT Christian:
Josephus Jewish Antiquities (c.93 C.E.)
(later interpolations in brackets)
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [if it be lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him [for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this date.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)
"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacitus Roman Annals (c.115-117 C.E.)
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanhedrin 43a (200-500 C.E.)
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu4 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!"5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
Antiquities xviii. 33 (early second century) from F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 37.
Pliny, Epistles x.96, from Bruce, p.26.
Tacitus, Annals xv, 44, from Bruce, p. 22.
Talmudic designation of Jesus.
"Sanhedrin," vol 3 of Nezikin, Babylonian Talmud, edited by Isidore Epstein, reprint (London: Soncino, 1938), 281.
-
John Jay was born in New York City. He didn't fell anywhere.
Many people came to the US from Europe to avoid persecution from Catholics, the Church of England, Lutherans, etc.
I would venture a guess than many more Catholics came here to avoid discrimination than Protestants.
-
John Jay was born in New York City. He didn't fell anywhere.
Many people came to the US from Europe to avoid persecution from Catholics, the Church of England, Lutherans, etc.
I would venture a guess than many more Catholics came here to avoid discrimination than Protestants.
tu_holmes is the one who said John Jay fled England. I didn't say it. I try not to venture guesses.
-
Wait - who are the founding fathers again - shouldn't we clarify that too.
You quoted Wikipedia earlier. So here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Signatories_of_the_Declaration_of_Independence
-
Samuel Adams
Rights of the Colonists, 1772:
The rights of the colonists as Christians … may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Lawgiver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.…
"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.…
"American Independence" Speech, 1 August 1776:
Our forefathers … opened the Bible to all, and maintained the capacity of every man to judge for himself in religion. Are we sufficient for the comprehension of the sublimest spiritual truths, and unequal to material and temporal ones? We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom alone men ought to be obedient. He reigns in Heaven, and with a propitious eye beholds his subjects assuming that freedom of thought and dignity of self-direction which he bestowed on them. From the rising to the setting sun, may his kingdom come!
Letter to John Adams, 4 October 1790:
Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age, by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, of inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity and universal philanthropy, and, in subordination to these great principles, the love of their country; of instructing them in the art of self-government without which they never can act a wise part in the government of societies, great or small; in short, of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.
-
Patrick Henry
A written statement on the back of Henry's Stamp Act Resolves:
This [the Stamp Act] brought on the war which finally separated the two countries and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use or people make of the blessings, which a gracious God hath bestowed on us.
If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable.
Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others.
Speech of March 23, 1775:
Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the Holy cause of Liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us.
Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations; and who will raise up friends to fight our battle for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.…
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
Letter to his daughter, Betsy, 20 August 1796:
Amongst other strange things said of me, I hear it is said by the deists that I am one of the number; and indeed, that some good people think I am no Christian. This thought gives me much more pain than the appellation of Tory; because I think religion of infinitely higher importance than politics; and I find much cause to reproach myself that I have lived so long, and have given no decided and public proofs of my being a Christian. But, indeed, my dear child, this is a character which I prize far above all this world has, or can boast.
Patrick Henry's Will:
This is all the inheritance I give to my dear family. The religion of Christ will give them one which will make them rich indeed.
-
You quoted Wikipedia earlier. So here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States#Signatories_of_the_Declaration_of_Independence
Fair enough - let's go with that list. Now If I start posting quote after quote from these guys about their religious beliefs or lack there of would it really make any difference? I'm really pressed for time today but I could probably do it tonight.
BTW - can you show me any reference to Jesus or God in the Constitution? If this country were really founded upon Christian beliefs you'd think it would be mentioned somewhere in that document
As I've stated before I have no doubt that many of the "founding fathers" held personal beliefs that could be identified as Christian (and many also did not) but there's nothing in the Consitution to support the proposition that our country was founded upon such beliefs and in fact (as posted earlier) the US Government has officially stated that fact
-
No. I was repeating only one quote that I had already posted. Did you miss all of the quotes from all of those guys above? I have more if you want me to go on.
I posted that only in response to your quote below. It's just humor, so relax. ;D
Sorry - I though you were trying to be factual
-
tu_holmes is the one who said John Jay fled England. I didn't say it. I try not to venture guesses.
I said I made a mistake... I thought you said John "D"ay... who was a printer in the 1500s I made a mistake on the "name"
-
Hey man, even if you don't believe in God, Jesus did exist. He is a historical figure, even if you don't believe that he is the Son of God. None of the following came from the Bible and their sources are NOT Christian:
Josephus Jewish Antiquities (c.93 C.E.)
(later interpolations in brackets)
"Now, there was about this time Jesus, a wise man [if it be lawful to call him a man], for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. [He was the Messiah.] And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him [for he appeared to them alive again at the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him]. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this date.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pliny the Younger Letter to Trajan (c.111-117 C.E.)
"...they maintained that their fault or error amounted to nothing more than this: they were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before sunrise and reciting an antiphonal hymn to Christ as God, and binding themselves with an oath not to commit any crime, but to abstain from all acts of theft, robbery and adultery, from breaches of faith, from repudiating a trust when called upon to honour it."2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tacitus Roman Annals (c.115-117 C.E.)
"They got their name from Christ, who was executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. That checked the pernicious superstition for a short time, but it broke out afresh--not only in Judea, where the plague first arose, but in Rome itself, where all the horrible and shameful things in the world collect and find a home."3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanhedrin 43a (200-500 C.E.)
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu4 was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, 'He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostacy. Any one who can say anything in his favour, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. But since nothing was brought forward in his favour he was hanged on the eve of Passover!"5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Endnotes
Antiquities xviii. 33 (early second century) from F.F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974), 37.
Pliny, Epistles x.96, from Bruce, p.26.
Tacitus, Annals xv, 44, from Bruce, p. 22.
Talmudic designation of Jesus.
"Sanhedrin," vol 3 of Nezikin, Babylonian Talmud, edited by Isidore Epstein, reprint (London: Soncino, 1938), 281.
Every single one of these people you quote was at least 100 years after "Jesus" supposedly had lived.
Why are there no documents mentioning him while he's alive? We have documents discussing many people WHILE "Jesus" was supposedly alive, but nothing that mentions Jesus?
That's a sham.
-
You really think Jesus did not exist? I'm sure there was at least some obscure preacher person executed and then had his life and image used to start a new religion many years later by some ambitious people.
-
You really think Jesus did not exist? I'm sure there was at least some obscure preacher person executed and then had his life and image used to start a new religion many years later by some ambitious people.
I am 50/50 on the issue... I've done some research and I just can't find any documentation saying he existed until long after his death was to have happened (100 years after almost).
We have documents about David, Paul, and John (his beheading is in historical documentation aside from the Bible), but nothing about Jesus.
Don't you find that odd?
-
Every single one of these people you quote was at least 100 years after "Jesus" supposedly had lived.
Every single one of these people? At least 100 years? Are you sure about that? Let's see:
Jesus was around 30 C.E. to 33 C.E.
Josephus wrote about Jesus around 93 C.E., only 60 years later.
Pliny the Younger wrote about Jesus around 111 C.E., only 78 years later.
Tacitus wrote about Jesus around 115 C.E., only 82 years later.
So how do you say that every single one of these people wrote about Jesus at least 100 years later?
Why are there no documents mentioning him while he's alive? We have documents discussing many people WHILE "Jesus" was supposedly alive, but nothing that mentions Jesus?
If you know your History you do remember that paper and ink were a luxury back then, and many people could not write. So writing was very expensive and limited only to special events and special people. So there was no daily news paper. The Roman empire was a very big place and Jesus was around Palestine only. With no email, no TV, and no FedEx, it had to take a while for word to spread out about Jesus and for non-Christian people to realize that He was a "popular", "famous", "special" figure, worth writing about, worth mentioning in their writings.
And what are these documents you speak of? Can you mention some with references?
-
I am 50/50 on the issue...
Before I posted non-Christian documents that mention Jesus, you assured me that Jesus did not exist.
I've done some research and I just can't find any documentation saying he existed until long after his death was to have happened (100 years after almost).
First you said 150 years, then you said 100, then I showed you that non-Christians wrote about Jesus within 60 years of his crucifixion.
Jesus didn't even exist!
I have gotten into this a billion times... There was no Jesus. No documents discuss him until even 150 years after his supposed death.
Don't you find that odd?
What I find odd is all the non-factual Historical things that you are posting. Who has been telling you all these lies? Whoever that is, that person is spreading ignorance and you are falling for it.
-
What do professional historians say?
-
Before I posted non-Christian documents that mention Jesus, you assured me that Jesus did not exist.
First you said 150 years, then you said 100, then I showed you that non-Christians wrote about Jesus within 60 years of his crucifixion.
What I find odd is all the non-factual Historical things that you are posting. Who has been telling you all these lies? Whoever that is, that person is spreading ignorance and you are falling for it.
No bigger lies than the bible my friend... and while the years did drop down... there is still no documentation during Jesus' life... no documentation about birth, taxes, nothing.
Nothing but the Bible... which itself wasn't written until 300AD.
You have no idea about his crucification date, because it's not documented, so you're using unproven years to be a basis for your timeline... you can't do that.
Well, you can, but it's not scientific in any way.
Prove that jesus died on a cross, then you can prove that people wrote about him X number of years later... but before you prove he died, you have to prove he was even born on a specific date, which you can't do.
I can do this about many people of that time, but not Jesus... the "most revered person in history"?
Come now... aren't you stretching just a bit?
-
What do professional historians say?
They are split on it as well...
-
No bigger lies than the bible my friend...
That's your opinion.
and while the years did drop down... there is still no documentation during Jesus' life... no documentation about birth, taxes, nothing.
During Jesus' life? Didn't I already show why non-Christian writings came a few years later? Don't you think it would be odd to see writings about Jesus from around 33 AD coming from Rome when Jesus was in Palestine at the time? That would be less believable.
Nothing but the Bible... which itself wasn't written until 300AD.
300AD? Where did you get that? Are you still just throwing numbers randomly?
You have no idea about his crucification date, because it's not documented, so you're using unproven years to be a basis for your timeline... you can't do that.
Well, you can, but it's not scientific in any way.
What? Then how did you come up with 100 - 150 years after the crucifixion?
Prove that jesus died on a cross, then you can prove that people wrote about him X number of years later... but before you prove he died, you have to prove he was even born on a specific date, which you can't do.
I can do this about many people of that time, but not Jesus... the "most revered person in history"?
Come now... aren't you stretching just a bit?
Really? Interesting. Who are these many people of that time you talk about? Where did you get this information? No, really, I am interested.
-
Nothing but the Bible... which itself wasn't written until 300AD.
300AD? Let's see, you yourself said:
We have documents about David, Paul, and John (his beheading is in historical documentation aside from the Bible), but nothing about Jesus.
Very good point and very true. The death of Paul and John are historical facts, yet they are not recorded in the Bible, yet the deaths of other disciples who died earlier are recorded in the Bible. Likewise, the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in 70AD is a historical fact, yet is is not recorded in the Bible even though Jesus predicted its destruction in detail around 33AD. The Bible never boasts about the fulfilment of this prophecy, the destruction the temple. Therefore, the Gospels(The Biblical Records of Jesus) were written before the death of Paul and John, and they were written before the destruction of the temple in 70AD. That puts the entire New Testament writing within 30 years of Jesus' crucifixion.
This is not simply my opinion. This are historical facts. Again, even if you don't believe in God, even if you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, you can't deny that Jesus did exist. And you can't say that the Gospels where not written before 70AD.
-
That's your opinion.
During Jesus' life? Didn't I already show why non-Christian writings came a few years later? Don't you think it would be odd to see writings about Jesus from around 33 AD coming from Rome when Jesus was in Palestine at the time? That would be less believable.
300AD? Where did you get that? Are you still just throwing numbers randomly?
What? Then how did you come up with 100 - 150 years after the crucifixion?
Really? Interesting. Who are these many people of that time you talk about? Where did you get this information? No, really, I am interested.
Well, the Church in it's current form was formed during the Council of Nicaea around 300AD...
While the OLD testament was around from other sources for many years (Hebrew and the Quran) The new testament did not come together until this time... So the current Bible (With the Gospels which discuss Jesus' life) were written around this time.
There is a lot of arguing about which book was found when and when it was written, but the common belief is that it was not completely written until around 350AD. Which was the first archive placed into the Vatican at this time.
On top of that, while we attribute these "New Gospels" to the apostles, there is absolutely no possible way to verify that they were written by the people that the Bible says they were written by. There are no original manuscripts of any of the Gospels so everything is without a doubt "hearsay"
There are many writings about how John the Baptist was beheaded... this is documented in more locations than the Bible, and we can find them, however we can find no such items about a man who was so highly revered as "Jesus".
-
300AD? Let's see, you yourself said:
Very good point and very true. The death of Paul and John are historical facts, yet they are not recorded in the Bible, yet the deaths of other disiples who died earlier are recorded in the Bible. Likewise, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem in 70AD is a historical fact, yet is is not recorded in the Bible even though Jesus predicted its destruction in detail around 33AD. Therefore, the Gospels(The Biblical Records of Jesus) were written before the death of Paul and John, and they were written before the destruction of the temple in 70AD. That puts the entire New Testament writing within 30 years of Jesus' crucifixion.
This is not simply my opinion. This are historical facts. Again, even if you don't believe in God, even if you don't believe that Jesus is the Son of God, you can't deny that Jesus did exist. And you can't say that the Gospels where not written before 70AD.
Please see previous post... and yes I can deny he existed... There are many historical findings which debate this... YOU can say he existed, but I don't have to.
History has yet to prove that he did... It is all "hearsay".
-
tu_holmes,
I'm sorry! I'm not following. I don't care what the Roman Catholic Church did in 300AD.
I have shown that the gospels were written within 30 years of Jesus' crucifixion.
I have shown non-Christian, non-Biblical records of Jesus, written within 60 years of Jesus' crusifxion.
-
tu_holmes,
I'm sorry! I'm not following. I don't care what the Roman Catholic Church did in 300AD.
I have shown that the gospels were written within 30 years of Jesus' crucifixion.
I have shown non-Christian, non-Biblical records of Jesus, written within 60 years of Jesus' crusifxion.
I'm sorry man... but you haven't shown me that they were written within 60 years of Jesus' crucifixion... (If he was even crucified, which would mean he would have existed, and as of yet, still no proof on that)
While a LOT of the new testament was... there is no proof on the Gospels... and the Gospels are the tales of Jesus.
Here... this was all I could google on short notice and while some were.. many were not.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html
-
I'm sorry man... but you haven't shown me that they were written within 60 years of Jesus' crucifixion... (If he was even crucified, which would mean he would have existed, and as of yet, still no proof on that)
While a LOT of the new testament was... there is no proof on the Gospels... and the Gospels are the tales of Jesus.
Here... this was all I could google on short notice and while some were.. many were not.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorigin.html
tu_holmes,
FYI, I know where the Bible came from, but I went ahead and read your link. Thank you! Very intereting read. ;D
Look at what it says:
"45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D."
Not 100 A.D. - 150 A.D. Not 300 A.D. ;D
-
tu_holmes,
FYI, I know where the Bible came from, but I went ahead and read your link. Thank you! Very intereting read. ;D
Look at what it says:
"45- 95 A.D. The New Testament was written in Greek. The Pauline Epistles, the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of Luke, and the book of Acts are all dated from 45-63 A.D. The Gospel of John and the Revelation may have been written as late as 95 A.D."
Not 100 A.D. - 150 A.D. Not 300 A.D. ;D
You're missing Matthew though aren't you? 95AD oh wow... 5 years makes your point? Come now... you really are stretching it.
Again, the book YOU read is not in greek and it's not translated and as I've said, the first archived complete Bible is 350AD... that's a fact.
That site also states:
125 A.D. The New Testament manuscript which dates most closely to the original autograph was copied around 125 A.D, within 35 years of the original. It is designated "p 52" and contains a small portion of John 18. (The "p" stands for papyrus.)
You still are not showing me where anyone can PROVE that these Gospels were even written by the people who are credited with them... No one has original manuscripts... NO ONE.
That goes right along with the fact that there is still no documentation that was created in Jesus' life that says the man existed... We don't even have his crucifixion documented. Other crucifixions are documented... why not his? This guy was crucified by the Jews and the Romans carried it out... No one documented it until later?
The basis of my disagreement is still that there is no proof that he ever existed.
You will of course disagree, but that's to be expected... you have faith... faith means you must believe without proof... Good for you.
I have reason... reason dictates that there must be proof... of which, there is none.
-
tu_holmes,
from your own link: ;D
"Skeptics and liberal Christian scholars both seek to date the New Testament books as late first century or early second century writings. They contend that these books were not written by eyewitnesses but rather by second or third hand sources. This allowed for the development of what they view as myths concerning Jesus. For example, they would deny that Jesus actually foretold the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather they would contend that later Christian writers "put these words into his mouth."
Many of the New Testament books claim to be written by eyewitnesses.
The Gospel of John claims to be written by the disciple of the Lord. Recent archeological research has confirmed both the existence of the Pool of Bethesda and that it had five porticoes as described in John 5:2. This correct reference to an incidental detail lends credibility to the claim that the Gospel of John was written by John who as an eyewitness knew Jerusalem before it was destroyed in 70 A. D.
Paul signed his epistles with his own hand. He was writing to churches who knew him. These churches were able to authenticate that these epistles had come from his hands (Galatians 6:11). Clement an associate of Paul's wrote to the Corinthian Church in 97 A. D. urging them to heed the epistle that Paul had sent them.
B. The following facts strongly suggest that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written prior to 65 A.D. This lends credibility to the author's (Luke) claim to be an eyewitness to Paul's missionary journeys. This would date Mark prior to 65 A.D. and the Pauline epistles between 49-63 A.D.
Acts records the beginning history of the church with persecutions and martyrdoms being mentioned repeatedly. Three men; Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus all play leading roles throughout the book. They were all martyred by 67 A.D., but their martyrdoms are not recorded in Acts.
The church in Jerusalem played a central role in the Book of Acts, but the destruction of the city in 70 A.D. was not mentioned. The Jewish historian Josephus cited the siege and destruction of Jerusalem as befalling the Jews because of their unjust killing of James the brother of Jesus.
The Book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome under house arrest in 62 A.D. In 64 A.D., Nero blamed and persecuted the Christians for the fire that burned down the city of Rome. Paul himself was martyred by 65 A.D. in Rome. Again, neither the terrible persecution of the Christians in Rome nor Paul's martyrdom are mentioned.
Conclusion: These books, Luke-Acts, were written while Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events, and had opportunity to research portions that he was not an eyewitness to." ;D
-
tu_holmes,
from your own link: ;D
"Skeptics and liberal Christian scholars both seek to date the New Testament books as late first century or early second century writings. They contend that these books were not written by eyewitnesses but rather by second or third hand sources. This allowed for the development of what they view as myths concerning Jesus. For example, they would deny that Jesus actually foretold the destruction of Jerusalem. Rather they would contend that later Christian writers "put these words into his mouth."
Many of the New Testament books claim to be written by eyewitnesses.
The Gospel of John claims to be written by the disciple of the Lord. Recent archeological research has confirmed both the existence of the Pool of Bethesda and that it had five porticoes as described in John 5:2. This correct reference to an incidental detail lends credibility to the claim that the Gospel of John was written by John who as an eyewitness knew Jerusalem before it was destroyed in 70 A. D.
Paul signed his epistles with his own hand. He was writing to churches who knew him. These churches were able to authenticate that these epistles had come from his hands (Galatians 6:11). Clement an associate of Paul's wrote to the Corinthian Church in 97 A. D. urging them to heed the epistle that Paul had sent them.
B. The following facts strongly suggest that both the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts were written prior to 65 A.D. This lends credibility to the author's (Luke) claim to be an eyewitness to Paul's missionary journeys. This would date Mark prior to 65 A.D. and the Pauline epistles between 49-63 A.D.
Acts records the beginning history of the church with persecutions and martyrdoms being mentioned repeatedly. Three men; Peter, Paul, and James the brother of Jesus all play leading roles throughout the book. They were all martyred by 67 A.D., but their martyrdoms are not recorded in Acts.
The church in Jerusalem played a central role in the Book of Acts, but the destruction of the city in 70 A.D. was not mentioned. The Jewish historian Josephus cited the siege and destruction of Jerusalem as befalling the Jews because of their unjust killing of James the brother of Jesus.
The Book of Acts ends with Paul in Rome under house arrest in 62 A.D. In 64 A.D., Nero blamed and persecuted the Christians for the fire that burned down the city of Rome. Paul himself was martyred by 65 A.D. in Rome. Again, neither the terrible persecution of the Christians in Rome nor Paul's martyrdom are mentioned.
Conclusion: These books, Luke-Acts, were written while Luke was an eyewitness to many of the events, and had opportunity to research portions that he was not an eyewitness to." ;D
That was a quick link that I provided and I used it because it's a religious link... of course it's going to have more religious beliefs behind it... I was utilizing the factual basis.
If you look at the books of the bible in their own Luke is one of the few people who wrote less about Jesus... because he didn't witness many of the things matthew and mark claim to have seen.
Also, there is still no guarantee he wrote those passages... That is still debatable.
You are going in circles with this and while I appreciate you reading what I linked too, as I said... I linked to it due to it's religious take... As I felt it would benefit you as well.
Don't just take pieces of the link though... you take it all, or you take nothing... You either believe it all, or you do not.
-
I have reason... reason dictates that there must be proof... of which, there is none.
Proof? Yeah right. You have no proof that Julius Cesar and many other well accepted Historical figures ever existed. You may have evidence, but no proof. They are two different things. There is more evidence that Jesus existed than many other historical figures.
Actually, this discussion about the existence of Jesus has been very interesting, but it should have been over the moment I quoted Josephus. Josephus was a well respected and very credible historian of his time. He did not care about Jesus and had no interest in Jesus as a Messiah. Yet, Josephus mentions Jesus. He would have never mentioned Jesus had Jesus not been real and a very important figure of the time. That alone is evidence of Jesus existence. But that's not all. You still have all the other non-Christian, non-Biblical sources that mention Jesus, and you still have thousands of New Testament manuscripts that mention him.
Many well accepted historical figures have what, not even a complete manuscript, but only a portion of one? Why then do you attack the existence of Jesus and not the existence of all these other historical people? ::)
-
Proof? Yeah right. You have no proof that Julius Cesar and many other well accepted Historical figures ever existed. You may have evidence, but no proof. They are two different things. There is more evidence that Jesus existed than many other historical figures.
Actually, this discussion about the existence of Jesus has been very interesting, but it should have been over the moment I quoted Josephus. Josephus was a well respected and very credible historian of his time. He did not care about Jesus and had no interest in Jesus as a Messiah. Yet, Josephus mentions Jesus. He would have never mentioned Jesus had Jesus not been real and a very important figure of the time. That alone is evidence of Jesus existence. But that's not all. You still have all the other non-Christian, non-Biblical sources that mention Jesus, and you still have thousands of New Testament manuscripts that mention him.
Many well accepted historical figures have what, not even a complete manuscript, but only a portion of one? Why then do you attack the existence of Jesus and not the existence of all these other historical people? ::)
There are many historical documents that speak of Caesar... How can you say they do not?
How can you speak of Josephus?
If Jesus lived and died, it was before Josephus was even born, which was 37CE... Which would have been 4 years after Jesus' death if you believe he lived.
-
sorry tu holmes the other dudes argument and evidence has won me over
-
holmes
if you had to choose as a life or death decision, would you say that a man named jesus who was somewhat of a self styled prophet did exist and die aruond 29 AD in palestine or would you say he did not.
If your life depended on you being right, what would you say
-
holmes
if you had to choose as a life or death decision, would you say that a man named jesus who was somewhat of a self styled prophet did exist and die aruond 29 AD in palestine or would you say he did not.
If your life depended on you being right, what would you say
I would say that it would depend on whether or not you were raised in an environment that spoke of it.
I don't think many Japanese people would say yes...
-
holmes
if you had to choose as a life or death decision, would you say that a man named jesus who was somewhat of a self styled prophet did exist and die aruond 29 AD in palestine or would you say he did not.
If your life depended on you being right, what would you say
I'd probably try to figure out what the person threatening my life thought was the "right" answer and just say that.
How could anyone prove this is correct or not?
-
in god we trust was not put on $ untill the 1950's
-
-