God to the Founding Fathers

Thread starter #1

GunnSmokeer

Senior Member
Happy Independence Day, everyone.
I'm posting here just to say out loud that I'm thankful for the God-fearing reverent men who took the reigns of power from England back then (1775-1783), and who had the nerve to sign their names to the Declaration of Independence and send it off to King George III.

The Declaration of Independence certainly did not comply with the liberal-created idea that the government of a people has to be be indifferent to faith, must flee from any reference to God and must not allow God to be spoken of or cited or praised in a government building or property. The Declaration of Independence explicitly references God, although in a way that does not point to a particular faith or denomination.

If you take the Leftists at their word, the proper role of religion in our Constitution is "separate and unequal." Doctrines of faith, and people who practice them, must be shunned from public life and kept "in the closet." God is for churches only, and should not be seen or spoken of outside of church. That's what the liberal Democrat Party wants.

Yet, the Framers of the Constitution penned a document that announces that the laws of "Nature's God" entitles a people to self-determination, and than mankind was created by God, and given certain rights by God. Civil government, of men, exists as the earthly tool to protect these rights that came from God.

Today's school children don't actually READ the Declaration, do they? They are told about it, and given a summary of it, and I would presume a summary that omits any mention of God. That's the way our education system works. Modify the history to fit the socialists' narrative.
**********************
Today we remember the day our ancestors basically declared war on Great Britain. Fighting had been going on here and there for over a year at this point, but now as of July, 1776 it was going to get much more intense.

Yet the Bible says there is a time for war and a time for peace.
Ecclesiastes 3:8


When sufficiently provoked and to further God's plan, the Lord even instructs us to beat our plowshares into swords.
Joel 3:10.

I'm glad the Founding Fathers had the discernment to know what things they could change and the courage to carry out that change.
 
Thread starter #2

GunnSmokeer

Senior Member
P.S. The modern Leftist-socialists' idea of separation of church and state is kind of like the Jim Crow laws of the segregated South, don't you think?

And, as the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education, telling a group of people that they are unfit to mix with you and must keep themselves away from you is itself an unequal and offensive act, even if what they have available on their side of the tracks is "equal to" what's on your side of the tracks. Even if their water fountain is the same brand and model, tapped into the same water main, as the "whites only" drinking fountain.

The atheists in America want a return of segregation, but this time with Christians as the group that must be shunned and is not welcome to fully participate in society.
 
P.S. The modern Leftist-socialists' idea of separation of church and state is kind of like the Jim Crow laws of the segregated South, don't you think?

And, as the Supreme Court ruled in Brown v. Board of Education, telling a group of people that they are unfit to mix with you and must keep themselves away from you is itself an unequal and offensive act, even if what they have available on their side of the tracks is "equal to" what's on your side of the tracks. Even if their water fountain is the same brand and model, tapped into the same water main, as the "whites only" drinking fountain.

The atheists in America want a return of segregation, but this time with Christians as the group that must be shunned and is not welcome to fully participate in society.
I don't see it that way at all. I think what they are saying is just have one water fountain for blacks, whites, males, females, the religious, and the non-religious.
Unless you agree that an equal but different water fountain is good enough. How does your wife feel about that?

Do you purpose a different school as well? Maybe an equal but different school for the Atheist. Then we'd need another for the Pagans. Another for the Oneness believers and yet another for the Trinitarians. And another for the Jews.

I guess I'm missing what you are saying and that their request is what I just mentioned. Thus like the Jim Crow Laws.

Please explain the comparison a bit more. What is it they want the government to do in relation to the Jim Crow laws or segregation concerning religion or lack their of?

Should we look at religion the same way we look at racism or sexism as it pertains to freedom? I mean the founding fathers talked about the rights of all men when slavery was legal. Are we to assume they were experts on equal rights? How did they feel about women? Native Americans?

Example; "women and blacks," we have equal but different schools and jobs for you but, hey our founding fathers thought this process was OK so it's got to be OK. Right?
Moving on to religions. We'll give you equal but different things as well.

I hope I'm missing something and if so I apologize.
 
Last edited:

Miguel Cervantes

GON Severe Weatherman
To understand the founders intent you must study who they drew their concepts from.

Jonathan Winthrop would be a good place to start.
 
Thread starter #6

GunnSmokeer

Senior Member
I don't care if Jefferson thought Jesus was God himself or a super-angel delegated by God to take care of humanity's problems. That's not the point. The point is that BOTH the authors of this Declaration AND the men who signed it publicly expressed a belief in God, which is directly opposite of the prevailing culture of political correctness in America today among all the institutions controlled by the lefties-- our schools and universities, our large corporations, the government itself as an employer, the government as a provider of public services. All of these institutions act as if atheism is the truth and people of faith are troublemakers who need to be silenced so as not to offend anybody.
 
Thread starter #7

GunnSmokeer

Senior Member
I don't see it that way at all. I think what they are saying is just have one water fountain for blacks, whites, males, females, the religious, and the non-religious.
...I'm missing what you are saying and that their request is what I just mentioned. Thus like the Jim Crow Laws.

Please explain the comparison a bit more. ...
The leftists' attitude toward Christians in particular (not so much Jews or Muslims, since they are seen as persecuted or disadvantaged minority groups) is similar to the Jim Crow segregated South in this respect:

The government is saying "I'm not your enemy, but I cannot be your friend either. I will be cold and distant to you and give you the minimum attention the law allows when you request something from us. Our disdain for you will be palpable. Yet, you aren't going to be denied anything the law says we must provide. You can send your kids to our schools, and our fire department will spray water on your house if it catches fire, but if you send the fire station Christmas cookies, we'll have to throw them out, lest a non-Christian firefighter or county-employed janitor see them and be offended. If your kid goes to our school, don't complain when we tell him the Bible, or any one book from it, is not a fit subject for a book report. Expect that if he wears a cross around his neck or has a "God loves you" tee shirt that we'll make him turn it inside out and put him in detention for making trouble. You Christians just stand in line for your ladle full of slop and eat it silently; don't pray visibly because that makes others in this institution uncomfortable. You can be a Christian at home, or at your church, but don't be showing off your Christianity in public."

In the same way, the governments of the deep South said to blacks, 60 years ago:

"There's no more slavery, and you may be American Citizens, but the rest of us have a right not to have to look at you in public. You can have that hamburger and soda, but just get it at the take out window, not the lunch counter. You have a right to use the bus, but not sitting where white people have to look at you or smell you. We have to admit that legally you are persons with rights under the constitution, but you can exercise your rights OVER THERE, while the rest of us white folk enjoy our rights HERE, THERE, and THAT OTHER PLACE too. White people find you offensive, and we have the right to limit what places you can go and what you can do to keep our fellow white people from being offended, as long as we provide you the same kind of services white people get. So you can eat a hamburger, and you can ride the public bus, and you can get a business license for your hair salon, as long as you ask at the back door and don't make a public display of your blackness. You can be black at home, or at your A.M.E. church, and at the colored folks' park over on Booker T. Washington Ave. Just don't be black out in public with white around."
 
OK, thanks for clearing that comparison up. So the lefties are saying; you can be a Christian, just be one at home or in your Church, You can't act like one in the public or within government.
You think the lefties are OK with one being Muslim or Jewish? Do you think all the lefties are Atheist? Don't some of them believe in a god? Some lefties I know are Pagan. They feel the same about Muslims and Jews as they do Christians.

I think the reason it appears they pick on Christians more is because most white conservatives are Christian. Most t Republicans are Christian. It's the political aspect they are against more than the religious aspect of conservatism.

I don't think they'd like the Muslims or Jews to be in a religious government power any more than they want the Christians to be.

Maybe what they are saying is; if you can be an uppity Christian, then I can be an uppity Pagan or uppity Atheist, or uppity homosexual.
If the fire dept can't except Pagan fruity cakes then neither can they accept Christian Cross cookies with religious tracts in them like fortune cookies. I'm sure the Pagan fruity cakes would be in some strange shape with rainbow sprinkles as well.
 
To me it seems like it's become a competition. If they can do this in public then we will do this. We as heterosexuals or Christians or whatever see this as an in your face response to our Christianity or beliefs.
We then respond with a like in your face response. So now it's to the point that it's a political power competition more than a sharing of religious or social concepts.

We see it as a challenge to Christianity, morals, heterosexualism, conservatism and they see what has always been as a challenge to their religion or lack of religion, morals, homosexualism, liberalism, etc.
 
A tip of the hat towards deists and non Christians for a belief in god but no tip of the hat to those believers they were rebelling against. Sounds like a false narrative and not giving credit where it is due. May as well take pride in those who publicly proclaimed “God save the king!”.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
A little clarification - Jefferson may have drafted........but was by all means NOT the sole decider of the contents of the D.O.I.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_of_Five

The original draft is preserved at the Library of Congress.............complete with changes made by John Adams and Benjamin Franklin as well as notes of changes made by Congress.
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-history


Jefferson`s rejection of the Divinity of Christ (Jesus is known as Christ) was not a rejection of religion or one God. The Jews also reject the Divinity of Christ (Jesus)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_of_Thomas_Jefferson
 
So now we are back to the question, is a belief in a deity better than a belief in no deity?
Would a Pagan or a Hindu be better at setting up a country for independence than an Atheist?
If that deity isn't the God but is only a god? Is that really any better?
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
So now we are back to the question, is a belief in a deity better than a belief in no deity?
Would a Pagan or a Hindu be better at setting up a country for independence than an Atheist?
If that deity isn't the God but is only a god? Is that really any better?
I think the question of it is better to believe in a deity or not will only get a biased based answer.

To establish a free independent country.......... you set it up to allow them to observe or not observe any God / god they choose.

I think if we really looked into this, regardless if you are a believer in any form, or non-believer, we all believe we have natural rights. The difference is going to be that we don`t agree on the source from where those rights come from.
 
I think the question of it is better to believe in a deity or not will only get a biased based answer.

To establish a free independent country.......... you set it up to allow them to observe or not observe any God / god they choose.

I think if we really looked into this, regardless if you are a believer in any form, or non-believer, we all believe we have natural rights. The difference is going to be that we don`t agree on the source from where those rights come from.
I'm not sure we all believe the others have natural rights based on the fact the founding fathers were Christians or deists. I think that's the basis of the OP. That since the founding fathers were Christians or at least deist, then our rights were based on that belief concept.
That the founding fathers were not giving the same rights to Atheist, or not even homosexuals, or even Pagans.

That these others are trying to take away or add to what the founding fathers gave. That they didn't give freedom to all nor did they consider all men equal. They didn't even consider women equal or Blacks.

I don't think an answer to my question has to be biased. Would a government set up by Atheist be worse than one set up by believers in the wrong god?

My answer is no. Being Christian, I'd rather have a Christian government. Beyond that I'd rather have an Atheist government over a Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu government.

I'm not a believer in this "even a belief in a god is better than a belief in no god." That right there is crazy talk. That is way worse than not believing in the one true God.

Think about it. Is it better to believe in a golden calf than no god at all?
 
You can't push an agenda that the founding fathers gave everyone equal rights and then show that the founding fathers were Christian and/or deist and only considered the rights of Christians or deists.

I'm not sure what the mindset of the founding fathers was. Maybe deep down they were for equality but were blinded by their religion or by being white or by being men.

Maybe their hearts were in the right place but they were blind. It would be like a Black man listening rap music that is degrading to women and not seeing the same struggle Black men faced decades earlier.
 
The founding fathers thought that our Creator gave us certain rights. Maybe not the same rights to women and Blacks but rights non the less from the Creator.

I can't see what difference it makes as far as these rights go as to who this Creator is unless it's the God of Jesus. But they decided to use Creator like they were maybe open to other beliefs.
What is a Creator other than God or a god?
 
I think the question of it is better to believe in a deity or not will only get a biased based answer.

To establish a free independent country.......... you set it up to allow them to observe or not observe any God / god they choose.

I think if we really looked into this, regardless if you are a believer in any form, or non-believer, we all believe we have natural rights. The difference is going to be that we don`t agree on the source from where those rights come from.
Does it matter what God those rights come from as expressed in the D.O.I if it changes to "We the People" in the Constitution?
One is a deceleration of independence stating the Creator gave us rights as men. The other is the constitution of we the people establishing laws as men. Matters not any more what God thought or gave..
The DOI was the sales pitch to convince everyone that the Creator gave us rights. Then it was men who eventually gave us the actual rights.
 

Spotlite

Senior Member
I'm not sure we all believe the others have natural rights based on the fact the founding fathers were Christians or deists. I think that's the basis of the OP. That since the founding fathers were Christians or at least deist, then our rights were based on that belief concept.
That the founding fathers were not giving the same rights to Atheist, or not even homosexuals, or even Pagans.

That these others are trying to take away or add to what the founding fathers gave. That they didn't give freedom to all nor did they consider all men equal. They didn't even consider women equal or Blacks.
I find no reason to believe that our Founding Fathers did not believe that every man / woman born in any part of the world is created equal and has unalienable rights that are not govt given, and the govt to be set up cannot take those away. Rights that can be taken away are "inalienable".

As far as slavery; John Adams -"foul contagion in the human character" and "an evil of colossal magnitude."

James Madison - "the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man."

Jefferson proposed legislation to emancipate slaves in Virginia.

The wheels of govt turn slow, you will have a long hard time trying to convince me that our Founding Fathers didn't believe this for every human, and the Declaration of Independence may have been the step in the right direction that they needed.




I don't think an answer to my question has to be biased. Would a government set up by Atheist be worse than one set up by believers in the wrong god?

My answer is no. Being Christian, I'd rather have a Christian government. Beyond that I'd rather have an Atheist government over a Muslim, Jewish, or Hindu government.

I'm not a believer in this "even a belief in a god is better than a belief in no god." That right there is crazy talk. That is way worse than not believing in the one true God.
See, even your answer for what is better as asked in your original question is biased. Does not matter if you would settle for less in another situation.


The founding fathers thought that our Creator gave us certain rights. Maybe not the same rights to women and Blacks but rights non the less from the Creator.

I can't see what difference it makes as far as these rights go as to who this Creator is unless it's the God of Jesus. But they decided to use Creator like they were maybe open to other beliefs.
What is a Creator other than God or a god?
You do realize that Allah is the Arabic word for God? A believer in one God does not make you a Christian. Although they had a Christian background and in searching for freedom of religion and escape the overbearing religious pressure they faced, people would have to be allowed to choose. If not, they didn't escape anything.


Think about it. Is it better to believe in a golden calf than no god at all
There is a difference in idols and deities.
 
I find no reason to believe that our Founding Fathers did not believe that every man / woman born in any part of the world is created equal and has unalienable rights that are not govt given, and the govt to be set up cannot take those away. Rights that can be taken away are "inalienable".

As far as slavery; John Adams -"foul contagion in the human character" and "an evil of colossal magnitude."

James Madison - "the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man."

Jefferson proposed legislation to emancipate slaves in Virginia.
Did he? In what year did he do that and what was the title of the act?
 
Top