Declaration of Indenpendence,Christian Principles?

[Guest SerenityNow]

After reading the reading the Declaration of Independence, I do not see how at all, that Christians can claim that it is based on Christian principles. The Bible itself condones slavery and if we lived by the bible this nation, IMO, would look more like a third world country.

 

It was written by Thomas Jefferson, as many know, and John Adams and Ben Franklin oversaw it.

 

Here are some quotes from these 3 pivotal Declaration of Independence writers....

 

John Adams "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

 

Thomas Jeffersonhis Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:

 

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

 

Ben Franklin from his Autobiography

 

"My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting way. But I was scarce fifteen, 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."

 

Benjamin Franklin considered himself a deist

 

Here is the link for his online autobiography http://www.worldwideschool.org/library/boo...lin/chap20.html

 

I think these men tried to save us from the evils of ALL religions. Belief in God does not equal a belief in Christian God.

 

***This thread does not have to stay focused on just the Declaration of Independence****

[crazy-tiger]

Belief in God does not equal a belief in Christian God.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It does if you're a fundie...

[Vigile]

Jefferson:

 

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.

 

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

 

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world and I do not find

in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They

are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men,

women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been

burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this

coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to

support roguery and error all over the earth."

 

http://www.ecis.com/~alizard/founding-fathers-xtianity.html

 

Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."

 

Madison:

 

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise"

 

http://www.deism.org/frames.htm

 

Etc., etc.

[John]

Well, out of the 10 commandments, four counteract American laws, and two of them are not part of our laws.

 

The thinking of the Founding Fathers (particularly Thomas Jefferson) was to a great extent influenced by the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment centered on experience, human thought and reason as opposed to the divine thinking of religious thought. This reasoning in government is best seen in the work of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Voltaire.

 

I can effortlessly tell you the historic roots of the Bill of Rights.

[Vigile]

Please do!  As stated this discussion is not limited to just the Declaration and I would LOVE to learn all that I can.

 

I second that!

[John]

Well, the concern of a predominating federal government such as the colonists had undergone under English rule, led numerous people to call for confidences, i.e., that particular rights were going to be secured.

 

Ok, will start off with the first amendment (freedoms). So, how was this derived? Well, the English government had repressed assembly, speech, and press rights in an endeavor to appease the developing colonial discontentment. By the way, numerous early settlers (Pilgrims) came to America in search of religious freedom.

 

Bear in mind, Voltaire advocated freedom of speech, and religious toleration (the Bible doesn’t).

 

As for the second amendment (right to keep and bear arms). What are the historic roots for this? Well, in the period of time prior to the revolution, the English sought to restrict militia activity, as they justly dreaded preparations for an approaching revolution.

 

Third amendment (no quarter). If you can recall, the Quartering Act passed by English Parliament necessitated the colonists to feed and house British troops based in the colonies.

 

I could go on and on... If you want, I could answer the significance of Hobbes, Locke, and so on or any of the other amendments (historic roots).

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

A clear indication of the founding father's intentions are spelled out in the Treaty of Tripoli which was negotiated under George Washington, unanimously ratified by the US Senate and signed into law by President John Adams. It says...

 

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...

 

What could be clearer?

 

 

 

 

 

Full treaty here.

[Dio]

I could go on and on... If you want, I could answer the significance of Hobbes, Locke, and so on or any of the other amendments (historic roots).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, I for one am woefully ignorant on these (and many other) issues (having undergone some 20 years of xtian brainwashing), but would enjoy some further discussion or just reading. I want my children to learn these principles. John, feel free to 'go on and on' according to your available time and inclination. This is quite worthwhile IMHO.

 

* EDIT follows:

 

* And thank you, thankful, for a good thread topic.

[Vigile]

I could go on and on... If you want, I could answer the significance of Hobbes, Locke, and so on or any of the other amendments (historic roots).

 

I studyied the influence of Hobbes and Locke fairly thoroughly in my political philosophy classes. It would be an interesting discussion to get into along with further reasoning behind the historical developments at the time of the framing. What you presented so far is very interesting.

[John]

Ok, I’ll go on . . .

 

Amendment four (search and seizure). Well, the British troops frequently searched property (at will). They did this in an attempt to restrain organizations working towards a revolution.

 

Amendment five ( rights of the accused). Many people were jailed without being accused of a crime under British law in the colonies. It was as well common for someone in the settlements to be tested under the laws of Britain, without respect to the local laws authorized inside the colonies.

 

Amendment six (more rights of the accused). In the period prior to the revolution, British courtrooms could restrain a suspect in jail without criminating her/him of a crime or taking them into a courtroom of law. Many suspects sat in prison for years expecting a trial, only to be found innocent.

 

I’ll end it here . . . I’ll talk about the significance of the Enlightenment thinkers instead, and I’ll start off with John Locke. Locke suggested the concept of the Social Contract (Rousseau further the idea). A Social Contract is an agreement between the people and their rulers, by which the people permitted the government to rule, and in exchange the government secures the natural rights of the people. Moreover, if the government neglects to defend these rights, the people can substitute that government with a new system. An example of this would be the American Revolution, which ended the Social Contract, i.e., King George III had neglected to defend the rights of colonists and per se a revolution was rationalized.

 

Locke held that all men are born with the natural rights of “life, liberty and property” and no government can overturn these rights. Natural rights are considered to be the rights all people are born with, and that are to be defended. The idea of natural rights can be traced to the Declaration of Independence, which contains reference to inalienable rights such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

 

Also, Locke argued that to be legitimate, a government had to rule with the consent of the people to be governed. In American democracy the consent of the governed is conveyed by voting for the politicians who maintain power. This idea is also conveyed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence.

 

I’ll start off with Montesquieu later, but this is enough for now . . . Even so, does the Bible even comment on any of these ideas? No!

[Wendybabe]

I have been reading a lot of books on the founding fathers for the past year. I have come to the conclusion-that fundies have been on a lifelong campaign to convince America that the founders held fundie values/beliefs. i.e. religion is more important than science, God communicates to our leaders personally, and we are constantly hearing them being quoted (Ussually out of contexty) by preachers, etc.. This is simply not true. I can't quote it verbatim but Ben Franklin stated in a letter to a friend that he believed the teachings of Jesus were changed by his followers. That he doubted that Jesus ever claimed to be the Eternal Creator God. Yet Sunday schools accross America use curriculum that depicts all of these men as Christians. We always see George Washington in prayer. Yet when George died he didn't send for a minister instead he took his own pulse. (An appropriate act in the age of reason.) I would like to develop curriculum that expresses the genuine beliefs of these men and use them in our school system. Michael Moore stated that "Americans are stupid!" I use to be offended at this comment. Yet after living in America under the W. Bush administration I have to admit that an awful lot of Americans believe the stupidest bullshit ever produced in history. BTW Just as fundies claim them, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin are claimed by the Unitarians. (Yet this leaves room for Deist also) BTW Jefferson rewrote the New Testament! He edited the crap and left the practical wisdom. This "heretical" edition of the Bible is given to each member of congress when they are sworn in!!!

[Vigile]

Locke held that all men are born with the natural rights of “life, liberty and property” and no government can overturn these rights. Natural rights are considered to be the rights all people are born with, and that are to be defended. The idea of natural rights can be traced to the Declaration of Independence, which contains reference to inalienable rights such as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”.

 

 

To add to this: Locke was employed by a member of the British arostocracy in his pursuit which attempted to refute Hobbes' arguments regarding the state of nature and natural rights. Property was included as a "natural" right for the purpose of protecting the property ownership rights of the aristocracy. Jefferson, when drafting the declaration, exchanged "property" for "pursuit of happiness." If I recall correctly, only land owners were allowed to vote initially.

[Vigile]

I have been reading a lot of books on the founding fathers for the past year. I have come to the conclusion-that fundies have been on a lifelong campaign to convince America that the founders held fundie values/beliefs. i.e. religion is more important than science, God communicates to our leaders personally, and we are constantly hearing them being quoted (Ussually out of contexty) by preachers, etc.. This is simply not true. I

 

 

This is precisely the goal of the christian coalition and other similar politically active groups. Attempts to frame the leaders you mentioned as evangelicals are even more deceitful than similar creationist ploys to debunk evolution. What I would like to know is where is their biblical basis for their political activity? Salt of the earth yes, but also "in the world, but not of the world." Not to mention (now forgive my memory, it's been a long time) in Peter? where they are told to accept and adhere to the government provided them as all governments are installed by god.

 

Give them an inch and they would have us living in a taliban-like society. I also wonder why their god is so feeble that he constantly needs their protection; that he needs them to change the laws and repress the desires and behaviors of us wicked ones. The whole thing just breaks down to absurdity when examined.

[Dirac]

Imagine if Germany called its tanks or missiles Jew or Gypsy? Would there be outrage? Of course. Why then is there total silence when the American government calls its missiles 'Tomahawk', its helicopters 'Comanche' and 'Apache'? Because Americans are withheld this side of their history by a subservient educational system. It's there if one looks for it but it's not readily available. Again imagine if the German education system taught nothing about the Holocaust and Germany's war record in the 20th-century? Uproar would ensue.

 

When we white Europeans went over to North America we massacred the crap out of the native Americans at genocidal proportions. One of the worst crimes in human history. The US was founded on the principle of ethnic cleansing. Quincy Adams, Jefferson et al. were all a party to this.

 

Colombus did not discover America; the native Americas had been well aware of it for tens of thousands of years.

 

A quick question: Has anyone, particularly Americans or Europeans, heard of Howard Zinn's book 'A People's History of the United States'? Has anyone read it? I'd really recommend it! It's a fantastic description of US history, particularly viewed from the eyes of the poor and vulnerable who were annihilated along the way. It gets you past the propaganda machine which churns out the myth of American superiority.

 

Aha, I've just googled for it and there's a few free pages here

[Dirac]

Here's a few quotes from the above:

 

The Indians, Columbus reported, "are so naive and so free with their possessions that no one who has not witnessed them would believe it. When you ask for something they have, they never say no. To the contrary, they offer to share with anyone...." He concluded his report by asking for a little help from their Majesties, and in return he would bring them from his next voyage "as much gold as they need . . . and as many slaves as they ask." He was full of religious talk: "Thus the eternal God, our Lord, gives victory to those who follow His way over apparent impossibilities."

 

Praise the Lord! He gives us gold and slaves! Blessed be his name!

 

Columbus later wrote: "Let us in the name of the Holy Trinity go on sending all the slaves that can be sold." But too many of the slaves died in captivity. And so Columbus, desperate to pay back dividends to those who had invested, had to make good his promise to fill the ships with gold. In the province of Cicao on Haiti, where he and his men imagined huge gold fields to exist, they ordered all persons fourteen years or older to collect a certain quantity of gold every three months. When they brought it, they were given copper tokens to hang around their necks. Indians found without a copper token had their hands cut off and bled to death.The Indians had been given an impossible task. The only gold around was bits of dust garnered from the streams. So they fled, were hunted down with dogs, and were killed.

 

Trying to put together an army of resistance, the Arawaks faced Spaniards who had armor, muskets, swords, horses. When the Spaniards took prisoners they hanged them or burned them to death. Among the Arawaks, mass suicides began, with cassava poison. Infants were killed to save them from the Spaniards. In two years, through murder, mutilation, or suicide, half of the 250,000 Indians on Haiti were dead.

 

...

 

When he arrived on Hispaniola in 1508, Las Casas says, "there were 60,000 people living on this island, including the Indians; so that from 1494 to 1508, over three million people had perished from war, slavery, and the mines. Who in future generations will believe this? I myself writing it as a knowledgeable eyewitness can hardly believe it...."

 

Thus began the history, five hundred years ago, of the European invasion of the Indian settlements in the Americas. That beginning, when you read Las Casas-even if his figures are exaggerations (were there 3 million Indians to begin with, as he says, or less than a million, as some historians have calculated, or 8 million as others now believe?) is conquest, slavery, death. When we read the history books given to children in the United States, it all starts with heroic adventure-there is no bloodshed-and Columbus Day is a celebration.

 

...

 

The Puritans also appealed to the Bible, Psalms 2:8: "Ask of me, and I shall give thee, the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." And to justify their use of force to take the land, they cited Romans 13:2: "Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation."

[Vigile]

A quick question: Has anyone, particularly Americans or Europeans, heard of Howard Zinn's book 'A People's History of the United States'? Has anyone read it? I'd really recommend it! It's a fantastic description of US history, particularly viewed from the eyes of the poor and vulnerable who were annihilated along the way. It gets you past the propaganda machine which churns out the myth of American superiority.

 

Aha, I've just googled for it and there's a few free pages here

 

 

Thanks for the book tip Dirac. I've planned for years to read something along these lines and haven't gotten around to it. Since I am one of the poor fools educated by the US educational system I am woefully ignorant of this and similar subjects.

[Vixentrox]

Imagine if Germany called its tanks or missiles Jew or Gypsy? Would there be outrage? Of course. Why then is there total silence when the American government calls its missiles 'Tomahawk', its helicopters 'Comanche' and 'Apache'? Because Americans are withheld this side of their history by a subservient educational system. It's there if one looks for it but it's not readily available. Again imagine if the German education system taught nothing about the Holocaust and Germany's war record in the 20th-century? Uproar would ensue.

 

When we white Europeans went over to North America we massacred the crap out of the native Americans at genocidal proportions. One of the worst crimes in human history. The US was founded on the principle of ethnic cleansing. Quincy Adams, Jefferson et al. were all a party to this.

 

Colombus did not discover America; the native Americas had been well aware of it for tens of thousands of years.

 

A quick question: Has anyone, particularly Americans or Europeans, heard of Howard Zinn's book 'A People's History of the United States'? Has anyone read it? I'd really recommend it! It's a fantastic description of US history, particularly viewed from the eyes of the poor and vulnerable who were annihilated along the way. It gets you past the propaganda machine which churns out the myth of American superiority.

 

Aha, I've just googled for it and there's a few free pages here

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Your analogy between Jew/Gypsy and Comanche/Apache doesn't really hold up. In my opinion it's a way of honoring these people. It's a way to honor someone. USS Ronald Regan, USS Stennis, M1A1 Abrams tank, Sherman tank, ect, ect. How about bases named after gnerals and medal of honor recipients?

 

This is not demeaning by any stetch of the imagination, at least not to me.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

A quick question: Has anyone, particularly Americans or Europeans, heard of Howard Zinn's book 'A People's History of the United States'? Has anyone read it? I'd really recommend it! It's a fantastic description of US history, particularly viewed from the eyes of the poor and vulnerable who were annihilated along the way. It gets you past the propaganda machine which churns out the myth of American superiority.

I also recommend Zinn's book. A couple of other books along the same lines are:

 

Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson for a balanced view of the civil war and its causes

and

Lies My Teacher Told Me by James Loewen for a look at what you're not being told in history class about American history.

[Dirac]

edited by myself - pointless post

[Dirac]

Though the post is on US histtory, that obviously doesn't mean it's just the US which covers up its shameful histry. In British schools you'll be hard pushed to really get at the true horrors of colonialism and Empire which we plagued the world with.

[Vixentrox]

Yeah, the Brits had some of the first concentration camps in South Africa. Then there is their treatment of the aborigines in Austalia.

[Dirac]

Yeah, the Brits had some of the first concentration camps in South Africa.  Then there is their treatment of the aborigines in Austalia.

Yes Vixentrox too true, too true sadly. I guess it's the same in most countries, certainly Western countries.

[Vixentrox]

Go back far enough in time you can probably find it for all tribes, races, nations, and peoples.

[♦ nivek ♦]

Most of we who give a damn refer to the Federalist-driven and authored "Bill of Goods".

 

If you care to do so, do a websearch for Anti-Federalist writings and read what the *other side* had to say about the hamiltonian sect...

 

kL

[Druid]

Though the post is on US histtory, that obviously doesn't mean it's just the US which covers up its shameful histry. In British schools you'll be hard pushed to really get at the true horrors of colonialism and Empire which we plagued the world with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The opposite over here.