Comments about ‘Revisionists trying to distort Founders' view of religion’

Mr. Cannon's remarks are fine as far as they go; the founders for the most part believed in God, or at least in providence. But many didn't believe quite like we believe. For example, it is comon knowledge that Thomas Jefferson came for with his own version of the Bible (minus all of the miracles). Also, Fremasonry was a big deal to the founders (most of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Masons), and masons tend to deism. So, yes, a case can be made that this is a Christian nation, but we have to be careful in claiming Founders' support for our particular views because theirs were quite different from ours. Also, let's not forget the conribution of the Greeks and the Romans.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But 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.
-- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-81

I am for freedom of religion, & against all maneuvres to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, 1799

I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803

What is obvious is that our forefathers wanted only to leave no handholds for religious persecution in this country. They clearly felt that this goal could only be attained if government was forcefully committed to minding it own business as to what religious views a person held.

Unfortunately, modern anti-religious fanatics have found ways around the intentions of our forefathers by pushing for extreme interpretations of the constitutional right to practice religion.

By eliminating all remnants of government endorsement of a religion, they effectively have used the law to attain their own anti-religion agenda. Instead of a government that tolerates all religious views, we have a government that persecutes all religions equally.

To those who believe, we are one nation under God. To those who do not believe, we are not. If you are able to live your religion as you please, then the government is doing its job.

If you are not able to live your religion as you please (including singing Christmas songs in public schools or putting the ten commandments on government property when you want to) then the government has denied you your rights. ‘Extreme interpretation’ is the enemy of good law.

The great thing about the Founders is that their religious views, among other things, were so diverse. People today try to lump them all together, but they were just as diverse in thought and belief as Americans are today. Some believed in the miracles in the Bible; some did not believe in the miracles in the Bible. Some lived virtuous lives; some lived lives with marital scandals as big as those of Bill Clinton or John McCain. Some wanted more power to go to the states, and some wanted the federal government to have more power.
Of course, today, people distort the Founders into what they want the Founders to be, instead of what they really were.

Well researched and thought out Mr. Cannon. Now prepare to be crucified on the cross of atheism (sarcasm intended) and secularism. The movement to remove religion and theism from all aspects of Americn life is as predudicial and bigoted as its founders claim the religionists to be in their attempt to retain the principles upon which so much of our founding ethic was anchored.
It is indeed ironic that the charter which allows e our freedoms to continue is also the one which allows its perniscious dismantling by those who are intent in so doing.There is just as little "live and let live" in the abolitionists as they claim there to be in the religionists. They just won't admit it.

What a wonderful article. I think many of those supporting the view point that they were either athiests or deists simply have not studied them at length. You are correct in your assertion that they were neither. They knew the scriptures and knew that this nation was not to be ruled by a church or a king (save one). They were good men and I wish people would stop trying to make them what they weren't.

"... the Founders were, demonstrably, regular church goers, who knew their bibles and incorporated scriptural texts into their working vocabularies."

"Demonstrably" is the important word. Our leaders, tasked with establishing a democracy, needed the people to back them. Given most people back then were religious, it should be obviously why they felt they had to be so demonstrative.

"I believe that James Madison captured the world view of all of the Founders when he said 'the belief in a God All Powerful, wise and good is so essential to the moral order of the world and to the happiness of man...'"

Madison was a great man, but I completely disagree with him on this point. Who were the atheists then? What was the state of disbelief then? If Madison were alive today, I would ask him, Why? Why is it essential to the moral order? I would argue with him that religion is based on complete fiction, and that it therefore impedes morality.

I don't believe people in the era preceding modern science had the wherewithal to really challenge religious beliefs. They challenged how religion was implemented, rather than belief in general.

It's not every day I agree with Joe Cannon--especially since he occasionally reveals that he hasn't read or understood the sources he's critiquing.

HERE, though, he's RIGHT ON: "It strikes me that, in part, some of the confusion and hostility derives from trying to put the Founders squarely on ones' own team."

Joe, you got it. That's exactly it. The extremists on the religious right who ultimately want to establish Christianity as our state religion represent the founders as devout Christians establishing a Christian nation. The secularist extremists who want to ban religion from public life use whatever the founders said against religion to bolster their programme.

Yes, Joe--both extremes misuse and misrepresent the founders' true intentions: TO KEEP RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT FROM CONTROLLING EACH OTHER. The founders wanted religion in its myriad forms to be *free to operate without government interference.* It was to be a "free marketplace of ideas." Not one religion elevated above the rest--OR in a position to control government!--and not religion banished from public life altogether.

That's the ONLY reasonable interpretation of the First Amendment in terms of religion.

I wrote: "The extremists on the religious right who ultimately want to establish Christianity as our state religion represent the founders as devout Christians establishing a Christian nation."

I should have been more clear, since many of the founders were Deists who certainly had pro-Christian sympathies. They were not "devout Christians" in the evangelical sense, though they are often represented as such. In any case, they certainly did not intend to establish an EXCLUSIVELY Christian nation, but rather one where ALL socially and personally beneficial forms of religious belief could be practiced without fear.

Secular or non-sectarian - either way, no religion should be forced on others, especially not through the power of government. When the government passes laws, they must do so on grounds other then "because a religion (or group of religions) says so." Otherwise, the law is sectarian, it favors one religion (or group of religions) over all others, and is a violation of the First Amendment.

its funny that joe would claim that people pick and choose what they focus on when it comes to the "founding fathers" then turn around and do the same thing to try to make his case. I think Timj is right and rather then continue to debate whether we are a "religious country or not we realize that we are a religious country and a secular country diverse in thought and deed.

Mr. Cannon points out that some of the hostility in the debate over the Founder's intentions "derives from trying to put the Founders squarely on ones' own team", by essentially cherry picking quotations.

Then Mr. Cannon does just that by over-generalizing their diverse views with a quotation from Madison that he feels "captured the world view of all the Founders", and of course the quotation he picks puts the Founders squarely on Mr. Cannon's "own team".

Joe started out so strong it is unfortunate that he fall into the same way of thinking that he rightly claims others always fall into. He selectively reads and quotes the people that support his way of thinking while failing to recognize or address those writings that contradict his thinking. The realty is that the time of the "founding fathers" was much as it is today with as many diverging points of view and motivations as their where "founding fathers." I do not know that there will ever come a time when we can find that perfect balance of the role of religion in society and I think it will be an ever shifting line which as it should be in democratic society, in my opinion of course.

Anonymous, I agree that no religion should be forced on any person. I am curious however, how you would treat public expressions of religious faith. Is displaying a cross at a public memorial pushing a certain religion or honoring the dead who were Chrisian. Is a menorah in the public square pushing Judaism? I would love nothing more than for people to come to some agreement on the difference between proselytizing and religious expression. I certainly don't care if you want to join my religion or not, but a nativity at Christmas brings me joy, and I don't think it is forcing a person to be a Christian, anymore than a lack of a nativity forces me to be an athiest.

So What, it's like saying the founders all were right handed. Compare the ideas that are contained in our constitution that directly come from the European elightenment period and it quickly becomes clear where the Founding Fathers ideas come from and it's not their Bible's it's the philosophical and political ideas of the 15th and 16th century Eurpoeans. That some of these ideas are consistent with the Founders religious beliefs is just a nice to have for you folks as it was for them.
I would also argue that your obsession with the religious origin of our constitutional priciples is smoke in the wind, or who cares. Once an idea becomes part of the state system it becomes secular and must stand on secular legs who cares where it comes from.

Did our founding fathers believe that an all powerful central government should be created that answered all questions, spiritual as well as non-spiritual, or, did they believe in a minimalistic central government where each citizen would first turn to his belief in God for answers to the questions of life?

When a people looks to its government as though that government were god; the giver of gifts; the entity that gives us our freedom and our liberty; the judge and jury that takes from our hard working citizens and gives to those too lazy to participate; then that people have become a nation of idol worshipers.

Our founding fathers had a deep and abiding respect for God. The churches of the time, especially the State Churches of Europe, offered them little, just as many of us do not accept the doctrine of those State Churches. To equate non-membership in an established church as non-belief is a false equation.

Our founding fathers would be ashamed of those who reject God. They expected more than that of themselves and they hoped for more than that from us.

Apparently, something in a post I wrote earlier this morning displeased the DesNews moderators. I wrote at 9 a.m. that even though sometimes Mr. Cannon unfortunately reveals his ignorance of his sources, this time around, he's exactly right.

The fact is: Many of those who participate in the modern religious debate are historically dishonest. They're more interested in making the statements of our nation's founders fit their modernist views than they are with actually understanding what the founders wanted.

What the founders wanted was this: RELIGION AND GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE NO IMMEDIATE POWER TO CONTROL EACH OTHER. Religion would be free to follow the dictates of conscience, and government would govern over political affairs, without crossover. Religion would be a free marketplace of ideas rather than dictated by the state. As long as religious belief didn't openly challenge laws or the government itself, it would be allowed. But there was no collective call for a public ban on religion.

The "free marketplace of ideas" is what was intended in the First Amendment. Those who misconstrue various founders' statements to support their own modernist agendas are FLAT-OUT WRONG.

" ... how you would treat public expressions of religious faith."

Not allowed. Period.

"Is displaying a cross at a public memorial pushing a certain religion or honoring the dead who were Chrisian."

Yes, if it is only public property (i.e., property owned by any level of government), it must not be allowed as it establishes a relationship between the religion and the government. The point is to honor the dead, not their religions. We have no idea what most people buried in public cemeteries (particularly military cemeteries) thought about their religions so, aren't we being at least presumptuous by putting a religious symbol over their heads?

"Is a menorah in the public square pushing Judaism?"


It's the same as a cross. Yes, it's pushing a religion.

"I would love nothing more than for people to come to some agreement on the difference between proselytizing and religious expression."

They are one and the same!

"...but a nativity at Christmas brings me joy, and I don't think it is forcing a person to be a Christian, anymore than a lack of a nativity forces me to be an athiest."

You can have all the pseudo-joy you want but keep it on your own property or that of your co-religionists.

The lack of a nativity scene is meaningless. The absence of something means absolutely nothing but when you inject a symbol, it takes on a meaning that is offensive to many people. I don't care if it's on your lawn but it must not be on mine! And by "mine," I mean the public's.

From Anonymous @ 9:13

You ask, "Is displaying a cross at a public memorial pushing a certain religion or honoring the dead who were Chrisian. Is a menorah in the public square pushing Judaism?"

I would answer that it depends on how welcome other expressions of faith are. In my opinion, if you allow a cross to honor the Christian dead, but don't allow a symbol to honor the dead of other faiths, then yes - you are proselytizing by sending the message that only those of the Christian faith are worth recognizing. The same thing if you allow a menorah but not a creche.

When it comes to religious expression, either all must be welcome in the public square, or none should be welcome. Any thing else is a government endorsement of a particular set of beliefs - which is clearly prohibited.

Kalli