The Six Commandments?

[Vhayes]

Ah, VHayes, ever the Devil's advocate.

So if I have a differing opinion than yours I am the "Devil's Advocate"? How lovely. But I'm sure you'll tell me you didn't mean it THAT way, right?

I don't know for sure, but I believe the early Church in the colonies was primarily Anglican. Yet I would think the services were probably geared more toward preaching embraced by all of the various denominations, with a heavy emphasis on praise and worship, rather than sectarian doctrine. But don't discount the main point: a government building was officially approved as a church building by both the House and Senate.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=90

Ok. David Barton. Enough said.

No, it had to do with a British shipping blockade in 1777. The people petitioned Congress to find a way to either import Bibles from somewhere, or else the materials necessary for the colonists to print their own. While the resolution was passed, money allocated, and Bibles were ordered by Congress, there is no indication that they ever actually arrived. But then, I suppose that's understandable with the war going on, huh?

The point is: Congress had an active hand in trying to secure Bibles--which obviously flies in the face of the modern revisionist perception of the Colonial government being vehemently opposed to the propagation of religion. Incidentally, four years after the aforementioned petition, Congress unanimously approved the printing of the Aitkin Bible, the first to be printed in the US. Again, the Bible was openly advocated by the government of the United States.

Today, not only would our government shrink in horror from sponsoring the printing of Bibles, but routinely sanctions the filing of endless lawsuits over even voluntary displays of the 10 commandments, Nativity Scenes and crosses in public places--despite their having been in place for a century or more, in some cases. A drastic change in the status quo, between early America and modern America , wouldn't you say? That's the point. Here's the "linky" you asked for:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=90

Ok. You are setting up a straw man. Many of the early Americans WERE Christian. It was a part of their daily lives much like it is a part of OUR lives. I am not at all opposed to having a Christmas display at city hall. I am also not opposed to having a Purim display or a Ramadan display. What I AM opposed to is having a Jehovah's Witness lead my child in prayer. Or a Muslim. Or, for that matter, a Mormon.

I need to do a memory refresher on the bibles. I'll come back to this, perhaps over the long weekend.

You're missing the point that Bibles even were a fundamental part of public schools. That schoolchildren grew up reading the Bible--with the government's blessings--is the point; and remarkable by today's standards and government policies. Being saturated with the word of God from childhood is one of the reasons so many early Americans grew up as Godly people, something that is sadly missing in American society today.

So you would be good with children learning to read from the Qu'ran today? Or maybe the book of Moroni?

The Bible was THE common book in society. There were no dedicated school book publishing houses - there were few BOOK publishers. They used what was available to most people in that era.

Again, you're missing the point: revisionists attempt to portray the wall of separation as having been firmly in place since America's founding, and religion eschewed in the public square. Yet, as late as 1892, the view existed among even members of the Supreme Court, that the USA is "a Christian nation." Whether or not you and I agree with that assessment, is immaterial and beside the point.

Have you read the "decision" and some of the following decisions by the judge in that case? It was a case to decide whether or not a Catholic priest (Irish I think) could be contracted by an American church to preside over the district. The law at the time (we were in a period of anti-immigration) said manual labor could not be contracted from out of the country. The judges decision was that the priest was "brain" labor and therefore exempt. his point was the majority of the people in the nation were Christian - therefore making it a "Christian Nation" and that those Christians who resided within the nation had a need for a shepherd.

Please don't take David Barton at face value. He leaves out lots of crucial information and at times bends things to make them say what he would have them say.

My point is: the same religious activity that is expressly forbidden in public schools and other government-funded institutions is employed in opening every session of Congress, where the laws of the land are designed and drafted--including the one that forbids prayer in government-run institutions. Does that not seem just a tad incongruous?

And I'll ask again - would you be willing to have a Muslim lead your child in prayer every day?



I'll deal with the John Adams portion of this whole thing as I have more time. Ponder indeed.

[Sojourner55]

This thread is drifting ever farther from the original topic, which was a judge's suggestion of eliminating the first four of the ten commandments. Knight Templar opined that the public display of the ten commandments did indeed violate the separation of church and state, according to the Constitution. In response, I raised questioned the validity of the Supreme Court ruling to which that idea owes its very existence. That landmark case is really at the center of the whole issue--and of the banishment from society from the influence of God. It's the reference point and justification for all of the ACLU's anti-religion litigation. As this thread is bound to continue meandering, I'm going to let it stay where it is, and start another thread to discuss the merits of Everson V Board of Education itself. But I do want to address one point you raised in your last reply.

I'm a great admirer of David Barton, whom I believe has proven himself to be an honorable Christian, and a historian possessing both great knowledge and accuracy. I've found that he has consistently documented everything he states as fact, and freely admits when evidence is not conclusive. I've seen a number of detractors disparage him, as you do, but I have yet to see anyone back up their attacks on his credibility with any compelling evidence. I'm sure you would not falsely accuse someone, so please cite a few examples of the willful prevarication/obfuscation you accuse him of.

[Vhayes]

This thread is drifting ever farther from the original topic, which was a judge's suggestion of eliminating the first four of the ten commandments. Knight Templar opined that the public display of the ten commandments did indeed violate the separation of church and state, according to the Constitution. In response, I raised questioned the validity of the Supreme Court ruling to which that idea owes its very existence. That landmark case is really at the center of the whole issue--and of the banishment from society from the influence of God. It's the reference point and justification for all of the ACLU's anti-religion litigation. As this thread is bound to continue meandering, I'm going to let it stay where it is, and start another thread to discuss the merits of Everson V Board of Education itself. But I do want to address one point you raised in your last reply.

I'm a great admirer of David Barton, whom I believe has proven himself to be an honorable Christian, and a historian possessing both great knowledge and accuracy. I've found that he has consistently documented everything he states as fact, and freely admits when evidence is not conclusive. I've seen a number of detractors disparage him, as you do, but I have yet to see anyone back up their attacks on his credibility with any compelling evidence. I'm sure you would not falsely accuse someone, so please cite a few examples of the willful prevarication/obfuscation you accuse him of.

That will take me a bit of time because I refuse to buy any of his books. But I will take the time even though I am certain any "evidence" I come up with will never be compelling enough to satisfy his fan base.

I'm glad you deemed that portion of my post to be more on-point than the portion dealing with the actual topic of the thread... but yes, please start a new thread where you can/will answer whether or not it would be ok to have children to learn to read from the book of Moroni.

[Sojourner55]

That will take me a bit of time because I refuse to buy any of his books. But I will take the time even though I am certain any "evidence" I come up with will never be compelling enough to satisfy his fan base.

I'm glad you deemed that portion of my post to be more on-point than the portion dealing with the actual topic of the thread... but yes, please start a new thread where you can/will answer whether or not it would be ok to have children to learn to read from the book of Moroni.

You don't have to buy any books. Simply peruse Barton's wallbuilders.com. It's free, and you'll find copious amounts of information from which you can attempt to compile a damning indictment. Please don't blow this off--I hear charges similar to the ones you make all the time, but no one ever produces evidence to justify having made them. I'll be waiting. BTW, I'm not dodging any question you've asked me, if that's what you think. Here you go: no, I would not want my child to be indoctrinated in false teaching of any kind--whether it be from the Koran, the book of Mormon or the Tibetan book of the dead. How about yourself?

You're trying to equate indoctrinating Christian children in a false religion, with imposing the Bible on children of pagan beliefs--an attempt to accentuate the "injustice" of subjecting pagans to Christianity. You may think that's a bad thing, but I don't. I personally think reaching the lost with the Gospel is a lot more important than political correctness, and that one's eternal state is more important than their achieving a comfortable atmosphere of religious diversity. I'll preach Jesus, and just deal with being called a bigot, thank you. I don't want to look across at anyone condemned on the day of judgment, and know all I did for them was to be tolerant of their belief system. But, I guess we all have our own priorities.

[Vhayes]

The way it seems to me is that you yanks have chucked out the Ten Commandments and are in the process of chucking out your constitution as well.

Can you explain in more detail what you mean?

[/quote]But Mammon and in many cases Satanism is being given free reign, but just by another name. You are fast on your way to basically becoming one nation under Lucifer complete with the daily sacrifices of children disguised as abortion. And don't get me started on the American Idol and the demigods of Hollywood.[/QUOTE]

From what nation do you hail? Is your nation without fault?

American has problems. We work at solving them. Abortion numbers are down and have been for a couple of years now. That's good. And for what it's worth, I have never watched a single episode of American Idol. As a matter of fact, I haven't turned on the television for over three years now - maybe four.

You seem to really dislike the United States. I'm saddened by that.

[Vhayes]

You don't have to buy any books. Simply peruse Barton's wallbuilders.com. It's free, and you'll find copious amounts of information from which you can attempt to compile a damning indictment. Please don't blow this off--I hear charges similar to the ones you make all the time, but no one ever produces evidence to justify having made them. I'll be waiting.

Here's one I found that is not earth shaking, not a biggie in the overall scheme of things, but simply not true.

In a taped interview, Barton tells a couple sitting across from him that Jefferson was a founder of the Virginia Bible Society. He says it twice.

Since Barton is the one who says he digs into correspondence to find out what the men actually "thought", you would think he would have read this - the letter to the Virginia Bible Society:

TO SAMUEL GREENHOW.
Monticello, January 31, 1814.
Sir,—Your letter on the subject of the Bible Society arrived here while I was on a journey to Bedford, which occasioned a long absence from home. Since my return, it has lain, with a mass of others accumulated during my absence, till I could answer them. I presume the views of the society are confined to our own country, for with the religion of other countries my own forbids intermeddling. I had not supposed there was a family in this State not possessing a Bible, and wishing without having the means to procure one. When, in earlier life, I was intimate with every class, I think I never was in a house where that was the case. However, circumstances may have changed, and the society, I presume, have evidence of the fact. I therefore enclose you cheerfully, an order on Messrs. Gibson & Jefferson for fifty dollars, for the purposes of the society, sincerely agreeing with you that there never was a more pure and sublime system of morality delivered to man than is to be found in the four evangelists. Accept the assurance of my esteem and respect.

If Jefferson was a founding member of the society, why would he have to "presume" anything? He would have already known what the mission and goals were.

BTW, I'm not dodging any question you've asked me, if that's what you think. Here you go: no, I would not want my child to be indoctrinated in false teaching of any kind--whether it be from the Koran, the book of Mormon or the Tibetan book of the dead. How about yourself?

I agree with you. I do not want children to have any religion "crammed down their throat" by the government.

You're trying to equate indoctrinating Christian children in a false religion, with imposing the Bible on children of pagan beliefs--an attempt to accentuate the "injustice" of subjecting pagans to Christianity. You may think that's a bad thing, but I don't.

To you, Islam is a false religion. To me as well. But to the Muslim American it IS their "true" religion - so why should they have to have what THEY consider a "false" religion forced on their children? And here's the real issue. A Muslim is JUST as much an American as a Christian, a Buddhist, an atheist or a druid. There is freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion in this country. Guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

I personally think reaching the lost with the Gospel is a lot more important than political correctness, and that one's eternal state is more important than their achieving a comfortable atmosphere of religious diversity. I'll preach Jesus, and just deal with being called a bigot, thank you. I don't want to look across at anyone condemned on the day of judgment, and know all I did for them was to be tolerant of their belief system. But, I guess we all have our own priorities.

Yes, I guess we do. Some people like to slip in little digs here and there - after chastising the diggee for the same thing.

I have no desire to live in a place where I must lock-step with whatever the leader of the nation wants in regard to religious practices. The government has no business dictating to me or any other citizen how I will worship. Yet, you seem to advocate exactly that. When was the last time to heard of anyone "converting" because they were forced to listen to something? The gospel has a way of speaking to lost souls without the government forcing that on them. It would do nothing quite so much as turn the lost completely off.

No one is telling you you cannot pray over your lunch in the lunchroom. No one is telling you you can't present the gospel to a neighbor.

You say:

I don't want to look across at anyone condemned on the day of judgment, and know all I did for them was to be tolerant of their belief system.

By like measure, I do not want to look across the way and see someone condemned because of the manner in which I presented the gospel. Jesus had no captive audiences. People were drawn to Him because of His message. His message is still powerful enough to draw the lost to Him without it being forced on them.

[Vhayes]

Here's another that I just ran across. I haven't been keeping up with Barton so this one was all new to me.

There's a video at this site where you can watch the entire exchange between Barton and Stewart but this is the pertinent part.
http://www.christianity.com/blogs/ew...1651566/print/

Stewart: So John Adams believed in the Holy Ghost?

Barton: He believed in the Trinity, and that’s where Unitarian...

Yet, here is a letter from Adams to Jefferson:

http://www.christianity.com/blogs/ew...1651566/print/

JOHN ADAMS TO THOMAS JEFFERSON.
QUINCY, September 14, 1813

DEAR SIR,—I owe you a thousand thanks for your favor of August 22d and its enclosures, and for Dr. Priestley’s doctrines of Heathen Philosophy compared with those of Revelation. Your letter to Dr. Rush and the syllabus, I return enclosed with this according to your injunctions, though with great reluctance. May I beg a copy of both?

They will do you no harm; me and others much good.

I hope you will pursue your plan, for I am confident you will produce a work much more valuable than Priestley’s, though that is curious, and considering the expiring powers with which it was written, admirable.

The bill in Parliament for the relief of Anti-Trinitarians, is a great event, and will form an epoch in ecclesiastical history. The motion was made by my friend Smith, of Clapham, a friend of the Belshams.

I should be very happy to hear that the bill is passed.

The human understanding is a revelation from its Maker which can never be disputed or doubted. There can be no scepticism, Pyrrhonism, or incredulity, or infidelity, here. No prophecies, no miracles are necessary to prove the celestial communication.

This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three nor can three be one. We can never be so certain of any prophecy, or the fulfillment of any prophecy, or of any miracle, or the design of any miracle, as we are from the revelation of nature, i. e., Nature’s God, that two and two are equal to four. Miracles or prophecies might frighten us out of our wits; might scare us to death; might induce us to lie, to say that we believe that two and two make five. But we should not believe it. We should know the contrary.

Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai, and been admitted to behold the divine Shekinah, and there told that one was three and three one, we might not have had courage to deny it, but we could not have believed it.

It seems pretty certain that Adams did not believe in the Trinity.

[Sojourner55]

Here's one I found that is not earth shaking, not a biggie in the overall scheme of things, but simply not true.

In a taped interview, Barton tells a couple sitting across from him that Jefferson was a founder of the Virginia Bible Society. He says it twice.

Since Barton is the one who says he digs into correspondence to find out what the men actually "thought", you would think he would have read this - the letter to the Virginia Bible Society:

TO SAMUEL GREENHOW.
Monticello, January 31, 1814.
Sir,—Your letter on the subject of the Bible Society arrived here while I was on a journey to Bedford, which occasioned a long absence from home. Since my return, it has lain, with a mass of others accumulated during my absence, till I could answer them. I presume the views of the society are confined to our own country, for with the religion of other countries my own forbids intermeddling. I had not supposed there was a family in this State not possessing a Bible, and wishing without having the means to procure one. When, in earlier life, I was intimate with every class, I think I never was in a house where that was the case. However, circumstances may have changed, and the society, I presume, have evidence of the fact. I therefore enclose you cheerfully, an order on Messrs. Gibson & Jefferson for fifty dollars, for the purposes of the society, sincerely agreeing with you that there never was a more pure and sublime system of morality delivered to man than is to be found in the four evangelists. Accept the assurance of my esteem and respect.

If Jefferson was a founding member of the society, why would he have to "presume" anything? He would have already known what the mission and goals were.

It's sad that you are so desperate to malign Barton that you would grasp at so flimsy a straw. You've taken Jefferson's words completely out of context in order to make it sound like he was oblivious to what was going on within the society. The fact is, Jefferson was well acquainted with the mission and goals of the society, and helped it by giving it his full support. If you hadn't been so intent on twisting the context with your bolding of a few words, you might have noticed that he not only pledged his support for the society's work, but even took money out his own pocket to support it financially. He didn't do that lightly. Here's a reference to further documentation of Jefferson's support: Thomas Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XIV, p. 81, letter to Samuel Greenhow, January 31, 1814.

You know, you would do well to so scrutinize the words of the current President. He's been caught in lie after lie since he took office, yet I have yet to see you address a single one of them. (If I'm wrong about that please feel free to straighten me out by citing an example).

I agree with you. I do not want children to have any religion "crammed down their throat" by the government.

I think there is very little chance of Christianity being forced down anyone's throat. I think it's much more likely that any such cramming will be on the part Islamists. In fact, if the leaders of the Muslim world, and groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and C.A.I.R. have their way, you'd better get used to wearing a burqua.

BTW, didn't you recently express your utter contempt for the use of the "cramming" phrase as a worn out mantra of conservatives? Why would you use it--especially in the context of evangelism?

To you, Islam is a false religion. To me as well. But to the Muslim American it IS their "true" religion - so why should they have to have what THEY consider a "false" religion forced on their children?

"There is a way which seemeth right to a man; but the end thereof is death." I'm not advocating "forcing" anything. I'm stating that all that really matters in this life is getting ready for eternity. And the only way to get someone ready is to preach Jesus to them--whether they accept Him or not. The watchman has a responsibility to sound the alarm when there is danger. And no greater danger exists than eternal damnation. As in the conventional sense, the spiritual watchman must do what is required, and let God deal with those who disregard the warning. But we will be held accountable for the silence of our trumpet.

And here's the real issue. A Muslim is JUST as much an American as a Christian, a Buddhist, an atheist or a druid. There is freedom OF religion as well as freedom FROM religion in this country. Guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

No, the REAL issue is eternity. And the shallow concerns of transient ideals are meaningless against that backdrop--and will one day be so regarded by all. But lefties like yourself are diversity and political correctness in this present world system, you've lost sight of the more pressing matter of being one in the Spirit--and with God's idea of correctness.

By like measure, I do not want to look across the way and see someone condemned because of the manner in which I presented the gospel. Jesus had no captive audiences. People were drawn to Him because of His message. His message is still powerful enough to draw the lost to Him without it being forced on them.

His message doesn't reach many people through Christians with closed mouths, does it? Tell you what: you keep your light under a basket, and I'll hold mine high. We must each give an account to the Master one day, and I personally do not want to be one found guilty of buried talents.

[Sojourner55]

Here's another that I just ran across. I haven't been keeping up with Barton so this one was all new to me.

There's a video at this site where you can watch the entire exchange between Barton and Stewart but this is the pertinent part.
http://www.christianity.com/blogs/ew...1651566/print/



Yet, here is a letter from Adams to Jefferson:

http://www.christianity.com/blogs/ew...1651566/print/



It seems pretty certain that Adams did not believe in the Trinity.

What's your point? Do you feel one has to believe in the triune nature of God to be a real Christian? I'm pretty sure that believing in Jesus as the Son of God and the cleansing power of His blood, and living a godly lifestyle is what makes one a true Christian in God's eyes. If questioning the trinity is the most damning indictment one can bring against Adams, I think his reputation is safe.

Personally, if I were you, I would be much more concerned about a President who not only advocates the murder of babies in the womb, but has no qualms about leaving it alone in a room to die, should it survive the abortion. Unmitigated inhumanity and lack of compassion as this, is what would make me question such a person's profession of the Christian faith. But then, we have a vastly different perspective of things, don't we? And to be honest with you, given the facts, I'm glad.

[Vhayes]

It's sad that you are so desperate to malign Barton that you would grasp at so flimsy a straw. You've taken Jefferson's words completely out of context in order to make it sound like he was oblivious to what was going on within the society. The fact is, Jefferson was well acquainted with the mission and goals of the society, and helped it by giving it his full support. If you hadn't been so intent on twisting the context with your bolding of a few words, you might have noticed that he not only pledged his support for the society's work, but even took money out his own pocket to support it financially. He didn't do that lightly. Here's a reference to further documentation of Jefferson's support: Thomas Jefferson, Writings (1904), Vol. XIV, p. 81, letter to Samuel Greenhow, January 31, 1814.

I never said he did not give it his support. Not once. I stated quite clearly that BARTON said Jefferson was a founder of the Virginia Bible Society. That is obviously NOT the case. As for Jefferson knowing the what was going on in that Society, one would have to be pretty dense to NOT know what a Bible Society did - and Jefferson was far from dense. I twisted no ones words but you certainly have twisted mine.

You know, you would do well to so scrutinize the words of the current President. He's been caught in lie after lie since he took office, yet I have yet to see you address a single one of them. (If I'm wrong about that please feel free to straighten me out by citing an example).

What does Obama have to do with Barton? I thought Barton was who we were discussing.

I think there is very little chance of Christianity being forced down anyone's throat. I think it's much more likely that any such cramming will be on the part Islamists. In fact, if the leaders of the Muslim world, and groups like the Muslim Brotherhood and C.A.I.R. have their way, you'd better get used to wearing a burqua.

That's the reason I am a firm believer in the separation of church and state. If we keep that separation, no religion will be able to force their practices on any American.

BTW, didn't you recently express your utter contempt for the use of the "cramming" phrase as a worn out mantra of conservatives? Why would you use it--especially in the context of evangelism?

I do find the phrase to be an expression of contempt for others. I wondered how you would react to it when applied to something you personally believe in (using the bible to teach 21st century school children regardless of their religion - NOT evangelism - please don't twist this into something it is not). Now, I know. You didn't seem to like it very well.

"There is a way which seemeth right to a man; but the end thereof is death." I'm not advocating "forcing" anything.

Ok. Then I misread this statement

You're trying to equate indoctrinating Christian children in a false religion, with imposing the Bible on children of pagan beliefs--an attempt to accentuate the "injustice" of subjecting pagans to Christianity. You may think that's a bad thing, but I don't.

Are you or are you not advocating Christianity and Bible reading in America's schools?

I'm stating that all that really matters in this life is getting ready for eternity. And the only way to get someone ready is to preach Jesus to them--whether they accept Him or not. The watchman has a responsibility to sound the alarm when there is danger. And no greater danger exists than eternal damnation. As in the conventional sense, the spiritual watchman must do what is required, and let God deal with those who disregard the warning. But we will be held accountable for the silence of our trumpet.

So... just so I'm clear - you believe Jesus is going to hold you accountable that 21st century American school children did not use the Bible as a text book?

No, the REAL issue is eternity. And the shallow concerns of transient ideals are meaningless against that backdrop--and will one day be so regarded by all. But lefties like yourself are diversity and political correctness in this present world system, you've lost sight of the more pressing matter of being one in the Spirit--and with God's idea of correctness.

Eternity IS the ultimate issue. But that isn't the subject of this thread. The subject of this thread is separation of church and state.

His message doesn't reach many people through Christians with closed mouths, does it?

The school system is the place to evangelize? You seem to be stretching things a bit. Christians are permitted to preach the gospel, talk to people - you know, visit orphans and widows, feed the hungry, clothe the naked. How are our mouths "closed"?

Tell you what: you keep your light under a basket, and I'll hold mine high. We must each give an account to the Master one day, and I personally do not want to be one found guilty of buried talents.

Yep, that's me. Light under the basket...

Thank you for the insult. Coming from you, I'll wear it proudly :-)

[Sojourner55]

I can assure you that we share a mutual level of respect.

[Vhayes]

I can assure you that we share a mutual level of respect.

Thank you for addressing the issue at hand and once again - thank you for the insult.

[Vhayes]

Originally posted by Vhayes:
This Treaty was signed by Adams in 1797. He also signed the Declaration of Independence and helped craft the language of the Constitution. My guess is, he would KNOW what the intent of the Constitution was. But even if he was misguided, the ENTIRE senate ratified the Treaty unanimously.

You need to do a little research on that treaty, and understand the context of Adam's statement, and why the treaty was written: Muslim pirates were targeting US merchant ships ay a time before we had a real Navy to protect them. The Musims took he position that the US, as a Christian nation, was subject to the jizyah tax. Adams and Jefferson were arguing that the US was not in fact, a de facto Christian nation, so our ships should not be attacked, or the US targeted.

England and France paid that same tribute. These were PIRATES for cryin’ out loud. They took slaves. The jizyah was based on a head count. It was a ransom for all intents and purposes.

EVERYONE was targeted.

Regardless, the intent of the language was to show that The United States was a sovereign nation, not a religious entity.

Rather than ignore the purpose for Adam's statement, and use it to make a point, you might want to ponder just what characteristics were being espoused by a supposedly religion-free government that would lead the Muslims to presume it was a Christian nation in the first place. Maybe there was a perception among the Muslims that many in this country--including its leaders--believed in the God of the Christians and Jews, rather than Allah, and held to the principles based on the teachings of Jesus. And maybe by stating the fact the US is not a theocracy (as Muslim nations are), the founders sought to dissuade the Muslims from attacking our ships on religious principle.

No one at any time that I am aware of has stated that the majority of people in the early United States were NOT Christian. I would take a stand at saying Jefferson was a Deist as opposed to a Christian but he certainly believed in a higher Being. OF COURSE they were guided by their inner beliefs. But that does not in any way, shape or form change the fact that John Adams and the entire Senate passed and signed a document that clearly states:
Art. 11. 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 against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] 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.

Why is this concept so difficult to grasp when the language is quite clear?

While you're pondering that concept, ponder these other quotes by John Adams, which better exemplify his personal beliefs about God and government:

"The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government – but that which is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words, damnation."

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity."

Hmm. Sounds like Adams not only believed that the Christian faith was foundational to both our right to, and securing of freedom, and dispensing benevolent justice and governance to the republic, but also to the whole world. And he is by no means alone among the founding fathers on that position. The clear words of many of them remain with us today--thank God, which express a deep abiding faith in God and commitment to Him, as paramount to any lasting success of this American system we live under. Sadly, that principle is slipping away from us today, and we have allowed God to be banished from society in the name of diversity. As a direct result, immorality and godlessness is spreading over us like a harbinger of doom.

Do you have access to that entire letter you quoted from? Have you read it in it’s entirety? Here it is:

Quincy December 21, 1809
My dear Sir

I thank you for the pleasing account of your family in your favor of the 5th as I have a lively interest in their prosperity and felicity, your relation of it gave me great pleasure. We have letters from our colony navigating the Baltic, dated at Christiansand. They had been so far as prosperous and healthy and happy as such travelers could expect to be.

Pope said of my friend General Oglethorpe.
Some driven by strong benevolence of soul shall fly like Oglethorpe from pole to pole. But what was a trip to Georgia in comparison with the journeys and voyages that J.Q. Adams has performed? I do not believe that Admiral Nelson ever ran greater risks at Sea.

Tell Richard that I hope Mrs. Rush will soon present him with a son that will do him as much honor in proportion as the first born of his genius has already done him in the opinion of the world. W.S.S. our guardian of the Athenaum has obtained it and proclaims it loudly everywhere the best pamphlet that will be read. Be sure you do not hint this to Mrs. Rush Junr. It would alarm her delivery.

I really do not know whether I do not envy your city of Philadelphia for its reputation for science, arts, and letters and especially its medical professor. I know not, neither whether I do not envy you your genius and inspiration. Why have I not some fancy? Some invention? Some ingenuity? Some discursive faculty? Why has all my life been consumed in searching for facts and principles and proofs and reasons to support them? Your dreams and fables have more genius in them than all my life. Your Fable of Dorcas would make a good chapter or a good appendix to the Tale of a Tub.

But my friend there is something very serious in this business. The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this Earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a Sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost, who is transmitted from age to age by laying the hands of the Bishop on the heads of candidates for the Ministry. In the same manner as the Holy Ghost is transmitted from monarch to monarch by the holy oil in the vial at Rheims which was brought down from Heaven by a dove and by that other phial [vial] which I have seen in the Tower of London. There is no authority civil or religious: There can be no legitimate government but that which is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation. Although this is all artifice and cunning in the sacred original in the heart, yet they all believe it so sincerely that they would lay down their lives under the ax or the fiery fagot [bundle of wood used for burning individuals at the stake] for it. Alas, the poor weak ignorant dupe human nature. There is so much king craft, priest craft, gentlemen’s craft, people’s craft, doctors craft, lawyers craft, merchants craft, tradesmen’s craft, laborers craft and Devil’s craft in the world that it seems a desperate [hopeless] and impractical project to undeceive it.

Do you wonder that Voltaire and Paine have made proselytes [converts]? Yet there [is] near as much subtlety, craft and hypocrisy in Voltaire and Paine and more too than in Ignatious Loyola [a Spanish knight who was a founder of the Jesuits].

This letter is so much in the tone of my friend the Abbe Raynal [a French writer] and the grumblers of the last age, that I pray you to burn it. I cannot copy it.

Your prophecy, my dear friend, has not become history as yet. I have no resentment of animosity against the gentleman and abhor the idea of blackening his character or transmitting him in odious colors to posterity. But I write with difficulty and am afraid of diffusing myself in too many correspondences. If I should receive a letter from him however I should not fail to acknowledge and answer it.
The Auroras you lent me for which I thank you are full of momentous matter.

I am dear sir with every friendly sentiment yours,

J. Adams.

Why did you cut and snip and paste the parts that said what you wanted them to say? When you read the entire letter, you see that Adams was being very, very snarky about the Holy Ghost being passed down to king’s and religious leaders. So, while I “go ponder” your cut and paste job and what that says about scholarly work, how about if you “go ponder” the entire letter and the vein in which it was written.

We're not a "Christian nation." Not in principle, and God knows, not in practice. The US is not a theocracy, and was neither so designed, nor represented. Yet, it is an irrefutable fact that the principles founded on the teachings of the Bible--righteousness before God, faith, truth, honor, and other precepts espoused therein, are the bedrock upon which the founders knowingly built this country's foundation. God is invoked in Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, so it's pointless to try and say He had nothing to do with our history.
Those who misrepresent the facts about the godly principles embraced by so many of the founders, leaders and citizens of colonial America are indeed justly defined as "revisionists." Get over it.

Would you please knock it off with the demands and disparaging remarks? I’m probably older than you are so while you may want to treat people who disagree with you as though they are a child, I am not a child and I will not be brow beaten by anyone.

This truth is all I'm trying to represent here.

Then please do so. No one has said Jefferson was an atheist. No one has accused Adams of being a heathen. Facts are facts – our nation came from people of European extraction and the religion OF Europe. No one is saying otherwise. But the nation was set up EXPRESSLY to allow people of all religions to practice that religion as they see fit.

And I did not accuse anyone of being a God-hater except those who have fought so hard to remove God's influence from American society--when it so clearly has always been a good thing for the nation. Removing preaching, prayer, Bible-reading, the 10 commandments, Nativity Scenes and crosses from the public square--when they stood for so long, makes you wonder what motivation is really behind these actions--and what kind of spirit.

Is it ok with you if we have a Ramadan display in the courthouse? How about Chanukah? If Vishnu appears with many arms in the public square, would you be offended? This is America where all religions are permitted, not Saudi Arabia where only one religion can be practiced. Thank God!

[Vhayes]

What's your point? Do you feel one has to believe in the triune nature of God to be a real Christian? I'm pretty sure that believing in Jesus as the Son of God and the cleansing power of His blood, and living a godly lifestyle is what makes one a true Christian in God's eyes. If questioning the trinity is the most damning indictment one can bring against Adams, I think his reputation is safe.

My point? That David Barton states John Adams believed in the Trinity when clearly he did not. I am not attacking John Adams - not at all. How would you get that out of what I posted?

Personally, if I were you, I would be much more concerned about a President who not only advocates the murder of babies in the womb, but has no qualms about leaving it alone in a room to die, should it survive the abortion. Unmitigated inhumanity and lack of compassion as this, is what would make me question such a person's profession of the Christian faith. But then, we have a vastly different perspective of things, don't we? And to be honest with you, given the facts, I'm glad.

What does David Barton have to do with Barack Obama?

In your post #19, you wrote:

You don't have to buy any books. Simply peruse Barton's wallbuilders.com. It's free, and you'll find copious amounts of information from which you can attempt to compile a damning indictment. Please don't blow this off--I hear charges similar to the ones you make all the time, but no one ever produces evidence to justify having made them. I'll be waiting.

[Vhayes]

And just for the record - yes, I DO think the divinity of Jesus Christ is imperative to salvation. Only God has the power to save.