Problems with "Pagans"

[pira114]

The argument presented, therefore, was that only since approximately 1990 has anyone ever claimed that the founders of this country intended that there should be a separation of Church and State, and, further, that there is absolutely no historical basis for such a claim in the first place. This is patently false and such an argument is built on swiftly shifting sands.

What I meant, and said, was that until about 1990, no one seemed to care that our court houses and money were covered with religious sayings and symbols. No one cared that we had the phrase “under God” in our Nation’s Pledge. It didn’t seem to matter that you swore on a Bible in court.

Then, all of a sudden, someone said, “hey, I can sue for this.” Then it all went to hell. Pun intended.

Prior to all that, people understood the phrase to mean that the Government did not support a particular Christian denomination. But no one would deny that it was deeply rooted in Christianity. Our countries, and most of the world’s, laws are based on laws that come from Christianity.

So was our country founded in Christianity? Yes. Proof? Look around. It’s about as obvious as it can get.

 

[pira114]

Just a few quotes from our founding fathers. I strongly recommend following the link to research more yourself. They obviously thought highly of our Creator.

patriotpost.us/fqd/quotes.asp

John Adams
1776 - Thoughts on Government
Category: God
It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.
Reference: The Works of John Adams, Charles Adams, ed., 221.

Benjamin Franklin
1787 - Motion for Prayers in the Constitutional Convention
Category: God
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 Men. And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?
Reference: Franklin: Collected Works, Lemay, ed. (1138)

Benjamin Franklin
1787 - Motion for Prayers in the Constitutional Convention
Category: God
And have we now forgotten that powerful Friend? or do we imagine we no longer need its 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 Men. And if a Sparrow cannot fall to the Ground without his Notice, is it probable that an Empire can rise without his Aid?
Reference: Franklin Collected Works, Lemay, ed., 1138.

Thomas Jefferson
1781 - Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18
Category: God
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 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 for ever.
Reference: Our Sacred Honor, Bennett (352)

James Madison
1785 - A Memorial and Remonstrance
Category: God
It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent both in order of time and degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe.
Reference: Our Sacred Honor, Bennett (327)

James Madison
1825 - letter to Frederick Beasley
Category: God
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, that arguments which enforce it cannot be drawn from too many sources nor adapted with too much solicitude to the different characters and capacities impressed with it.
Reference: Writings of Madison, Hunt, ed., vol. 9 (230)

George Washington
1783 - circular letter of farewell to the Army
Category: God
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 Characteristicks 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.
Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (249)

George Washington
1789 - Thanksgiving Proclamation
Category: God
It is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favors.
Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (543)

George Washington
1790 - letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport
Category: God
May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us in all our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.
Reference: George Washington: A Collection, W.B. Allen, ed. (548)

James Wilson
1793 - Chisholm v. Georgia
Category: God
A State, I cheerfully admit, is the noblest work of Man: But Man, himself, free and honest, is, I speak as to this world, the noblest work of God…
Reference: 2 U.S. 419 (1793)

Show me in the Constitution where it says that there must be a separation of Church and State please.

 

[Petergee]

I’m afraid that dog just won’t hunt . The only people who ever saw Article 11 were the Americans in the Barlow translation of the treaty, which had been written originally in Arabic. Article 11 does not exist in the Arabic, so it is not possible that it was included for the purposes you describe. Furthermore, evidence that this mistranslation had occurred has been readily available since 1800, but nothing has ever been done to change it or refute it.

The plain facts of the matter are that the American government, made up in large part of people who participated in the Revolution and founding of the country as well as writing its founding documents, in 1797 had absolutely no problem with ratifying a treaty which included that statement, nor was it sufficiently controversial to have been an issue. To claim otherwise is simply pointless.

yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1796n.htm

"As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point

A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic. Its text was not only formally proclaimed as such but has been continuously printed and reprinted as such; and yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts;"

You seem to have well and truly built a “straw argument” on “shifting sands”. You claimed that the statement “The USA is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” was in the Treaty of Tripoli and that this “proves” that this was the opinion of Washington & co. Now you tell us that this statement “does not exist at all” in the real Treaty which both parties signed! It seems then that you have no case at all for your claim that the USA is fundamentally and constitutionally non-religious.

 

[KarenNC]

You seem to have well and truly built a “straw argument” on “shifting sands”. You claimed that the statement “The USA is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” was in the Treaty of Tripoli and that this “proves” that this was the opinion of Washington & co. Now you tell us that this statement “does not exist at all” in the real Treaty which both parties signed! It seems then that you have no case at all for your claim that the USA is fundamentally and constitutionally non-religious.

No.

I stated that the United States government, including a President, Vice President and others who were present and participated in the founding of this country, knowingly and without any record of reservation, ratified a treaty in 1797 that included the statement that the United States was not founded on the Christian religion.

I further stated that this could not have been included, as pira claims, simply to “fool the Arabs” as the Arabs never saw that translation of the treaty which included Article 11. The version the Arabs and the US agents in Tripoli signed was in Arabic. This does not lessen the argument above regarding the position of the US government, because the Barlow translation was the document presented to the President, etc, and was the one they ratified, including specifically endorsing all the articles therein.

I never said the US was fundamentally non-religious. We are the most religious of the wealthy countries–http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/167.pdf (Do note that the word “religious” is not the sole province of Christians. I am very religious, but I am not Christian.) The issue is that the US is not now, and has never been, in the business of legislating in support of a specific religion, much less a specific sect of that religion. This has actually been much to the benefit of most modern Christian denominations, including Roman Catholics. It is also now of benefit to the newer groups of immigrants, many of whom are non-Christian, and to other minority religious groups in the US.

answers.com/topic/religion-and-religious-affiliation

 

[KarenNC]

Show me in the Constitution where it says that there must be a separation of Church and State please.

The Constitution is hardly the only document of relevance.

As to quotes, I am actually more interested in their stands on whether legislating adherence to a specific religion or public support by the government for such had a place in government and their actions regarding that. They may well have thought highly of a Creator in their own way, but that doesn’t mean that they intended him to sit in public office.

"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.—Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative 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.–Thomas Jefferson, letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.—Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

…that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; … that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it;…that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency, will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;…Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

—Thomas Jefferson, The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, 1786

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. … It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
– John Adams, “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88),

"I agreed with you in sentiments concerning the Old Testament, and thought the clause in our [Pennsylvania] Constitution, which required the members of the Assembly to declare their belief that the whole of it was given by divine inspiration, had better have been omitted. That I had opposed the clause; but, being overpowered by numbers, and fearing more in future might be grafted on it, I prevailed to have the additional clause, ‘that no further or more extended profession of faith should ever be exacted.’ I observed to you, too, that the evil of it was the less, as no inhabitant, nor any officer of government, except the members of Assembly, was obliged to make the declaration.–Benjamin Franklin, Works, p. 134

religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/madison_m&r_1785.html James Madison’s Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785 (too long to quote)

To go back even further in our country’s history, read Roger Williams’ A Plea for Religious Libery, 1644. religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/williams_plea_1644.html (also too long to quote)

 

[pira114]

The problem with being more interested in their stands on whether legislating adherence to a specific religion, is that no legislation has been written.

It is the Judges of our society who progress their own agendas, or agendas of those who finance them, by legislating from the bench. It was not, and is not, the leaders of our country who have made any laws regarding this (in recent years). It’s been case law. Which in itself is wrong.

So in getting back to the origional thread topic, that is what I believe is the problem with pagans. They (along with others) push their anti-Christian agendas and affect how I live.

 

[KarenNC]

What I meant, and said, was that until about 1990, no one seemed to care that our court houses and money were covered with religious sayings and symbols. No one cared that we had the phrase “under God” in our Nation’s Pledge. It didn’t seem to matter that you swore on a Bible in court.

I do want to address a few other common misconceptions:

The phrase “under God” was not in the original Pledge of Allegiance (which was not written until 1892 as part of an advertising campaign to sell flags, btw). It was Eisenhower who had the phrase “under God” added in 1954.

Before 1864, there were no references to God on our money. At that time and in years after (depending on the coin) it became optional to put the phrase on coins. It wasn’t until the 1960’s that it was added to most paper money.
treas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.shtml

The US Constitution also never mentions God
"Q133. “Please tell me if there is any mention of GOD or LORD or CHRIST anywhere in the US constitution.”

A. There is no direct mention of God in the Constitution, except in the formation of the date used in the document: “Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven”. The Lord in this phrase is, of course, Christ. That is it. Religion is indirectly mentioned in the oath of office, where a person is permitted to swear or affirm, taking into account those religions where swearing was impermissible. And no religious test was allowed for any office in the United States, which is neither a direct nor indirect reference to God or Christ, but is notable nonetheless."–http://www.usconstitution.net/constfaq_a7.html#Q133

The Constitution does provide for affirming rather than swearing (on the Bible or anything else) an oath when becoming President. Despite Hollywood’s depiction of it, there is not a uniform oath used to swear witnesses into court. Objections to using the Bible in this context are longstanding–http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06222/712484-85.stm.

Our courthouses and money are also (and historically have been) covered with Roman designs, Lady Liberty, and other non-Christian-specific designs. Think of all the representations of Blind Justice in courthouses. American architecture and art, particularly from the early years of our country, are full of such references.

 

[Maxply]

I’m getting more and more amazed with the made-up history getting circulated on the internet. No wonder we have so many conspiracy theories. . . people generating stuff like this.

Take some time and make an effort. Read a Hitler biography and some World War II history. Find out what responsible scholars have to say, rather than someone with an axe to grind. Gee, don’t you recall his vendetta against the Catholic Church in the '30s?

 

[KarenNC]

So in getting back to the origional thread topic, that is what I believe is the problem with pagans. They (along with others) push their anti-Christian agendas and affect how I live.

And I am equally as concerned with those (I believe a relatively small percentage of) Christians who are pushing their own agendas that will profoundly affect the way in which I live. A religion-neutral stance by the US government (as provided for in the First Amendment) is actually to the benefit of both of us as well as others.

 

[Petergee]

And I am equally as concerned with those (I believe a relatively small percentage of) Christians who are pushing their own agendas that will profoundly affect the way in which I live. A religion-neutral stance by the US government (as provided for in the First Amendment) is actually to the benefit of both of us as well as others.

You’re entitled to that opinion. But your assertion that the USA was founded on “a religion neutral stance” is wrong in historical fact. As you yourself said, “The Lord in this phrase is, of course, Christ.” To suggest any non-Christian regards Christ as “the Lord” is nonsense. Your country’s founders followed, as you yourself quoted them, “the holy Author of our religion”. i.e. Jesus Christ. They did not say “the authors of all religions”. Even if they had, this would not have included religions such as Hinduism which do not have a single author; and certainly not your own purported “religion” which wasn’t even invented until long after they died.

If you want to argue that it’s OK that certain authorities in the USA have recently decided that the USA should be anti-Christian or treat “neo-paganism”, “wicca” etc.etc. on the same basis as Christianity, then do so without pretending that this has always been the case. It clearly hasn’t. A few out of context quotes from Jefferson and Adams do not cancel out the vast documentation of your country’s Christian-based history.

 

[pira114]

I guess we can argue all day. This is not the first time it’s been argued anyway. There are millions of examples to bolster both sides of the arguement.

The one big advantage that we have for our side is that we belong to the one true Chruch of Christ. Even if the U.S. turns out to be a pagen stronghold in the future, we will prevail in the end. What country we come from and what that country stood for won’t matter at all compared to how we lived our personal lives.

 

[KarenNC]

**You’re entitled to that opinion. But your assertion that the USA was founded on “a religion neutral stance” is wrong in historical fact. **

The facts tell me otherwise. The founders very obviously intended that the US Government should be neutral as regards religion. Neutral as in establishing no greater protection for any one sect or religion over another, not oblivious to the fact that religions exist and that people follow them. It is certainly (thank the gods) possible for a person to hold a religious view in their personal life without feeling the need to legislate that everyone else follow their religion. I give you John F. Kennedy as an example. beliefnet.com/story/40/story_4080_1.html

This protection is beneficial to all religions, including yours.

Even if they had, this would not have included religions such as Hinduism which do not have a single author

Please refer to the quote I included from Jefferson:
" 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."

** and certainly not your own purported “religion” which wasn’t even invented until long after they died. **

First, I will thank you to give my religion (nothing purported about it) the same respect I give to yours–acknowledging that it exists, whether you agree with it or not.

As for “invented,” all religions start somewhere. There were no Christians in 25 BCE either. If the worth, validity or truth of a religion is based purely on its antiquity, then Christianity lags way behind in that race. How many years after the birth of Christ did it take before Christianity became a “real” religion rather than an “invented” one?

If you want to argue that it’s OK that certain authorities in the USA have recently decided that the USA should be anti-Christian or treat “neo-paganism”, “wicca” etc.etc. on the same basis as Christianity, then do so without pretending that this has always been the case. It clearly hasn’t.

The equal treatment of religions under the law of this country is not subject to the whim of “certain authorities” or “OK.” It is the law of the land, and not of recent origin. You are right in that equal treatment of all citizens under the law has not always been upheld, much to our shame as a nation. Under the law, your form of Christianity should indeed be treated equally with my religion (Classical Hellenic Neopaganism), as well as with Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Wicca, etc.

Yes, I can see why you would see the US as an anti-Christian nation. Christians aren’t allowed to have assemblies, to build houses of worship, to publish their literature, to hold office (particularly not that of Supreme Court Justice, Senator or President), to vote, to marry or perform marriages, to hold jobs, to establish their own schools, to protest things with which they disagree. Their businesses are boycotted and suffer under the burden of additional religious taxes, which are then used to support the clergy and institutions of other religions. Their children are taken away from them because of their religion. They dare not mention their faith or celebrate their holidays in public for fear of government reprisals or mob violence. They must wear government mandated identifying symbols on their clothes. Yes, indeed, it must be pure hell to be a Christian in America under such government-mandated oppression.

Thankfully no religion has to suffer under those kinds of conditions in America. They are all conditions that various religions (including Christianity) have suffered (or are suffering) under other governments. We should all be grateful.

** A few out of context quotes from Jefferson and Adams do not cancel out the vast documentation of your country’s Christian-based history.**

As to “out of context” I fail to see how my quotes are any less “in context” than those used by others on this board. I have never claimed that many of the citizens of this country have not been nor are currently Christian. I argue that it was not the intent of the founders of this country that any specific sect of any religion enjoy a status under law above that of any other. They wisely chose to leave mattters of religion between the individual and his/her deity(ies).

If you would care to look at the context of the Jefferson quotes, here is the full Autobiography
libertyonline.hypermall.com/Jefferson/Autobiography.html.

Jefferson’s letter to Dr. Cooper stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_cooper.html.
Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury congregation
usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

The Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

 

[KarenNC]

What country we come from and what that country stood for won’t matter at all compared to how we lived our personal lives.

Something on which we can both agree.

 

[lvy]

As far as I know, most of the founding fathers were deists. shrug Those quotes posted by pira114 sure sound deist to me.

 

[pira114]

Something on which we can both agree.

I knew we’d find something eventually.

 

[Maxply]

Again, this is a sign of bad history being used to prop up a conspiracy theory. There were a handful of deists and scoffers among the founders, but not very many. The great majority of the founders and the founding generation were believers in Christ.

I think one thing to keep in mind is that religious tolerance was agreed upon at a fairly early date. . . but of course this wasn’t the so-called “separation of church and state”, but for the most part in practice this meant each Protestant group would keep to itself and not badger other Protestant groups.

 

[KarenNC]

Again, this is a sign of bad history being used to prop up a conspiracy theory.

You’ve lost me here. Exactly what “conspiracy theory” is being “propped up?” Merriam Webster (online) defines conspiracy theory as "a theory that explains an event or set of circumstances as the result of a secret plot by usually powerful conspirators "

I do not believe I or any other poster on this topic has ever claimed that the founders made any secret of their intentions regarding religious freedom in this country nor that anyone has “conspired” against anyone else. In fact, I would say it was quite the opposite–we are claiming that they meant what they wrote in the First Amendment, Treaty of Tripoli and other documents. These weren’t grocery lists, dashed off hurriedly. Every word was weighed and examined, published and debated, and voted on by numerous men with a very vested interest in getting it “right.”

Now there are other things that have been discussed that I would agree were indeed “bad history propping up conspiracy theory” on the part of some Neopagans and I believe I have made my views (and that of many in the Neopgan community with whom I interact) on those clear. If not, I will be glad to expand if you will clarify.

 

[Paganus]

And I am equally as concerned with those (I believe a relatively small percentage of) Christians who are pushing their own agendas that will profoundly affect the way in which I live. A religion-neutral stance by the US government (as provided for in the First Amendment) is actually to the benefit of both of us as well as others.

Yeah, what’s with that “no slavery” thing anyway - this country was BUILT on slavery, right?

What gives Pope Urban VIII, Pope Leo XIII, and Pope Gregory XVI the right to push THEIR MORALITY on the rest of us?

After all, the plantation owners have their belief system - and you have yours - right?

 

[Paganus]

So someone believes something different than what you do. No need to attack it, everyone see the world differently.

“We are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to
tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.”
–Thomas Jefferson, 1820

 

[KarenNC]

ut for the most part in practice this meant each Protestant group would keep to itself and not badger other Protestant groups.

Actually you bring up a very valid point. I have to admit I am somewhat surprised to find a group of Roman Catholics wishing for a return of the "good old days’’ of the beginning of this country (just prior to the Revolution and after that as laws were shaped by the ideals). In fact, Roman Catholics are among the groups that have benefited the most from the increasing strength and fine-tuning of the enforcement of separation of Church and State. Having been the subject of persecution at many points in history because their religion was not considered “Christian,” I honestly would have expected a bigger push for a religously neutral goevernment.