Merry "Christ"mas, Our Founding Fathers Were "Not" Religious

[X-mog Profile]

Of course, America was founded as a result of religious persecution. In other words, they didn't wan't to go to church. This is common knowledge where I come from.

The common misconception of "In god we trust" was invented by the hucksters who realized that the good book was the number one seller. Most people don't realize how much dough that first wave generated. They could barely keep up with demand ffs.

[Jet17 Profile]

Are you aware that Im never against religiosity (as in spirituality) which is naturally detached from the dogmatic stupidity pervading the present institutional religious 'endeavours'...

Im all for the total separation of politics and institucionalized religions (Cosa Nostra pattern like)....Its one hell of a mix friend!

I am aware, but telling people that mythologies are real is not beneficial to anyone.

the dogmatic premise of any holy book, and scripture therein should be a reference of morals at best. I myself use the saying "Let he who hasn't sin cast the first stone." among variable other quotes as they are true in nature. you could say that Newton and Jesus (the mythology) are similar in thought as Newton said "for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction."

this would assume that whomever, or whatever feels the need to collide, could consider colliding based on the history of their paths.

I however do not think that "covenants" of religion get respect by annexing other scriptures and calling it their own, when it is not, it just came to be that way.

I am all for spirituality, in my eyes spirituality is a form of the Collective consciousness, that us humans just can not comprehend at the present time.

I believe with further human evolution, and upon death, we learn these universal truths, much like the bible says will happen. Except I don't detail what exactly happens and sell it as the whole truth of reality and "everything."

[Iamthatiam Profile]

Are you aware that Im never against religiosity (as in spirituality) which is naturally detached from the dogmatic stupidity pervading the present institutional religious 'endeavours'...

Im all for the total separation of politics and institucionalized religions (Cosa Nostra pattern like)....Its one hell of a mix friend!

I am aware, but telling people that mythologies are real is not beneficial to anyone.

the dogmatic premise of any holy book, and scripture therein should be a reference of morals at best. I myself use the saying "Let he who hasn't sin cast the first stone." among variable other quotes as they are true in nature. you could say that Newton and Jesus (the mythology) are similar in thought as Newton said "for every action there is an opposite and equal reaction."

this would assume that whomever, or whatever feels the need to collide, could consider colliding based on the history of their paths.

I however do not think that "covenants" of religion get respect by annexing other scriptures and calling it their own, when it is not, it just came to be that way.

I am all for spirituality, in my eyes spirituality is a form of the Collective consciousness, that us humans just can not comprehend at the present time.

I believe with further human evolution, and upon death, we learn these universal truths, much like the bible says will happen. Except I don't detail what exactly happens and sell it as the whole truth of reality and "everything."

One greatly inspired thread of youres here Jet, I will help to keep it up from my part, mate...thank you

[Iamthatiam Profile]

A secular state is a concept of secularism, whereby a state or country purports to be officially neutral in matters of religion, supporting neither religion nor irreligion. A secular state also claims to treat all its citizens equally regardless of religion, and claims to avoid preferential treatment for a citizen from a particular religion/nonreligion over other religions/nonreligion. Secular states do not have a state religion or equivalent, although the absence of a state religion does not guarantee that a state is secular. In addition, secular states are not necessarily communist nations that do enforce state atheism on the population.

Secular states become secular either upon establishment of the state (e.g. United States of America or India) or upon secularization of the state (e.g. France or Nepal). Movements for laïcité in France and for the separation of church and state in the United States defined modern concepts of secularism. Historically, the process of secularising states typically involves granting religious freedom, disestablishing state religions, stopping public funds to be used for a religion, freeing the legal system from religious control, freeing up the education system, tolerating citizens who change religion or abstain from religion, and allowing political leadership to come to power regardless of religious beliefs.

Not all legally secular states are completely secular in practice.

In France for example, many Christian holy days are official holidays for the public administration, and teachers in Catholic schools are salaried by the state. In many western European states where secularism has led to a situation that the church depends on the state for its (financial) resources to organise religious worship, the church itself is responsible for providing the "religious content", and educated clergy and lay-persons to exercise their functions. To that effect the church has established a number of secular organisations that manage the finances of the church. Any religious group, and also atheist organisations can apply for the same treatment to the government and receive subsidies usually based on the number of their followers.

In India, the government gives subsidy in airfare for Muslims going on Haj pilgrimage(See Haj subsidy). In 2007, the government had to spend Rs. 47,454 per passenger.After considerable pressure from Muslim groups and the Ministry of Minority Affairs, the Congress government in 2010 decided to begin phasing out the Haj subsidy that had been in operation since 1993. The Central Haj Committee of India will work through the Ministry of External Affairs to restructure the Air fares so that the richer Hajis will pay a premium for the poorer pilgirms. The entire restructuring is expected to take about seven years and be completed by 2017.

Many states that nowadays are secular in practice may have legal vestiges of an earlier established religion. Secularism also has various guises which may coincide with some degree of official religiosity. Thus, in the Commonwealth Realms, the head of state is required to take the Coronation Oath swearing to uphold the Protestant faith. The United Kingdom also maintains positions in its upper house for 26 senior clergymen of the established Church of England known as the Lords Spiritual (spiritual peers). While Scotland is part of the United Kingdom the Scottish Parliament declared Scotland a secular state but maintains the religious monarch.The reverse progression can also occur, a state can go from being secular to a religious state as in the case of Iran where the secularized state of the Pahlavi dynasts was replaced by the Islamic Republic (list below). Over the last 250 years, there has been a trend towards secularism.

Secular state

[Spock Profile]

Upload to Disclose.tv

[Jet17 Profile]

Upload to Disclose.tv

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism ... story.html


Consumer Alert : WallBuilders' Shoddy Workmanship


by Rob Boston

Author of The Most Dangerous Man in America? and Pat Robertson and the Rise of the Christian Coalition




(See sidebar: Mything in Action: David Barton's 'Questionable Quotes' by Rob Boston below.)

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

So said James Madison, architect of the Constitution, defender of religious freedom and fourth president of the United States, according to the Religious Right.

But to church-state separationists and historians of the post-colonial period, something about this Madison quote has never felt quite right. It seemed unlikely that the same Madison who advocated "total separation of the church from the state" and battled to disestablish the Anglican Church in Virginia would say it. The sentiment appeared to clash with his well-known advocacy of a healthy distance between religion and government.

A few years ago, with the quote popping up increasingly in the mass media (including Rush Limbaugh's daily radio show), Robert S. Alley, professor emeritus at the University of Richmond and author of James Madison on Religious Liberty, undertook a dogged effort to track it down. Enlisting the help of the editors of The Papers of James Madison at the University of Virginia, Alley scoured reams of documents, books and writings. After coming up empty-handed, the Madison scholar concluded that the quote was probably fictional.

Now the major purveyor of the quote, Texas-based Religious Right propagandist David Barton, has admitted it's bogus. Last year Barton's group, WallBuilders' issued a one-page document titled "Questionable Quotes," a list of 12 statements allegedly uttered by Founding Fathers and other prominent historical figures, that are now considered to be suspect or outright false. Madison's alleged comment about the Ten Commandments is number four on the list and is flatly declared by Barton to be "false." (See [below] for a full list of the bogus quotes.)

Advocates of separation of church and state were left breathless over Barton's audacity. For nearly 10 years, the Texas propagandist has traveled the country, putting on programs about America's alleged "Christian heritage" at fundamentalist churches and other venues. During these events, Barton argued that the separation of church and state is a myth foisted on the country by the Supreme Court 50 years ago. The United States, he insisted, was founded by Christians and was intended to be a fundamentalist-style "Christian nation."

What was Barton's proof for these claims? Many of the quotations he now admits are groundless! At least nine of the 12 were included in Barton's 1989 book, The Myth of Separation, and appeared in the video version, "America's Godly Heritage." Barton was so enamored of one quote supposedly uttered by Benjamin Franklin ("Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.") that it was included on a biographical sketch WallBuilders distributes about Barton, saying it "fully sums up what David believes and teachers." Barton now admits the quote is "questionable" and recommends people don't use it.

Alley finds Barton's reliance on phony history disturbing. "It's one thing to get up and make a speech and allude to something that isn't there, but when you have somebody parading a document in a book and that turns out to be an outright lie, it's more dangerous," Alley told Church & State magazine. "The danger is that people will find credibility in what he does largely because he represents himself in that mode. He's a double fraud."

Continued Alley, "For Barton to withdraw these quotes is fine, but that doesn't change the fact that they were wrong to begin with."

Barton's "Questionable Quotes" sheet tries to minimize the importance of the use of phony material. "Inevitably, the quotes will continue to be heard at the 'popular' level," reads the introduction. "Fret not; the sun will still rise. But at the scholarly level, please refrain from, or at least be cautious in, using any quotation that cannot be authenticated. Thank you for purifying your own waters in the world's rhetorical rivers."

In fact, much damage to Americans' understanding of their own history has already been wrought by these fake quotes. As Barton himself notes in promotional materials, "Many people have used quotes from our videos in writing 'Letters to the Editor' or sharing information with friends or public of officials." They have appeared incessantly in both right-wing and mainstream media and have been paraded about by conservative columnists and talk radio programs across the nation. On October 7, 1992, former U.S. Rep. William Dannemeyer of California, a staunch ally of the Religious Right, read the phony Madison quote into the Congressional Record. Millions of people may have been misled by this false information, only a tiny fraction of whom will ever see Barton's "correction."

Barton's sloppy research and predilection to rely on questionable sources never stopped Religious Right activists from recommending his materials. Television preacher and Christian Coalition founder Pat Robertson has lauded Barton as a "wonderful man." "I admire him tremendously for his breadth of information," Robertson gushed.

Barton has addressed Christian Coalition national gatherings for three years running and is active in the group's Texas chapter. El Cajon, Calif., City Council member Bob McClellan, a Barton groupie, often accompanies the Texas propagandist to meetings and hawks his books and tapes. McClellan, a Coalition activist, posts a banner saying the materials "have been invaluable in furthering the principals [sic] behind the Christian Coalition in San Diego."

The Rev. Jerry Falwell sells Barton's materials at the Liberty University bookstore, and the Texas activist has been interviewed at least twice by James Dobson on Focus on the Family's daily radio broadcast.

Even Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich has praised Barton. In a speech about school prayer delivered at the Heritage Foundation on Oct. 5, 1994, before he was named speaker, Gingrich -- who considers himself a historian -- called Barton's Myth of Separation book "most useful" and "wonderful."

Incredibly, Barton appears to have emerged undamaged even after admitting that many of his quotes are bogus, and he continues spreading incorrect information through the Religious Right's media empire. During his most recent interview with Dobson May 2, Barton conceded that Thomas Jefferson's famous 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut calls for a "wall of separation between church and state." But Barton went on to claim that later in the letter Jefferson says separation "means the government will not run the church, but we will still use Christian principles with government." In fact, Jefferson's letter says no such thing. (For more information about this and other Barton errors, see "Sects, Lies and Videotape," and "David Barton's Bad History," April 1993 Church & State magazine.)

Barton is apparently at least somewhat embarrassed by his inaccuracies, or at least wants to cover them up. Thus, The Myth of Separation has been "updated" and re-titled Original Intent. The new, longer volume omits the phony quotes and some of the more egregious errors in The Myth of Separation but remains rife with distortions of history and court rulings. Throughout, the book pitches the line that the United States was founded to be a "Christian nation" and charges that the modern Supreme Court and church-state separationists have covered up this legacy.

In his WallBuilder Report newsletter, Barton brags that the new volume contains "over thirteen hundred footnotes." He does not point out that The Myth of Separation also contained extensive footnotes but was still inaccurate because the sources Barton relied on were wrong.

Meanwhile, a federal court ruled recently that Barton's materials are inappropriate for use in public schools. The case was brought by Lisa Herdahl, an Ecru, Miss., mother whose objection to official prayers at the local public school has captured national headlines. A less-noticed part of her lawsuit challenges a class at the school known as "A Biblical History of the Middle East."

Herdahl asserted that the course was a ruse for teaching fundamentalist Christianity, and U.S. District Judge Neal B. Biggers Jr. agreed. In his June 3 decision, Biggers noted that course instructors used Barton's video "America's Godly Heritage," as well as other fundamentalist tapes, in class.

"[T]he only implication the court can draw from the showing of this and other religious films to a class of students supposedly studying Middle East history is that the teachers are attempting to indoctrinate the students in their religious beliefs by claiming to teach Middle East history," Biggers wrote. "This practice cannot be condoned in the context of a public school system. It is best left to the family and the church."

Barton's recent misfortunes are not likely to slow down the "Christian nation" movement. He continues to speak around the country, and scores of other Religious Right propagandists are also active, including Christian Reconstructionist Gary DeMar, TV preacher D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries, and the Rev. Peter Marshall who, like Barton, is a Christian Coalition favorite. These and some lesser known Religious Right activists crank out books, videos and other materials attacking separation of church and state and advocating union between religion and government.

Commenting on the Madison "Ten Commandments" fiasco in a 1995 article for the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, Alley, who serves on Americans United's Board of Trustees, noted, "Proving that a quotation does not exist is a daunting task. If you cannot find it in any extant manuscripts or collections of Madison's works, just how does one prove it will not turn up in someone's attic tomorrow? Of course you cannot.... But, after all, it is incumbent solely upon the perpetrators of this myth to prove it by at least one citation. This they cannot do. Their style is not revisionism, it is anti-historical."

Concluded Alley, "We likely have not heard the last of this nonsense, but it is important to press the new media frauds to document what they claim. Because they cannot do so in most instances, time may ultimately discredit the lot of them."









David Barton's
'Questionable Quotes'



Actualized in House Resolution On Decalogue Passes by Cliff Walker

"Christian nation" propagandist David Barton has issued a statement conceding that the following twelve quotations attributed to prominent historical figures are either false or at best questionable. WallBuilders' observations about the quotes are in parenthesis.



It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!
-- Patrick Henry (questionable)



It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.
-- George Washington (questionable)



Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian.
-- Holy Trinity v. U.S. [Supreme Court] (false)



We have staked the whole future of American civilization, nor upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God.
-- James Madison (false)



Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world.
-- Benjamin Franklin (questionable)



The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drawn from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer.
-- Noah Webster (questionable)



There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet.
-- Noah Webster (questionable)



The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion.
-- Abe Lincoln (questionable)



The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next.
-- Abe Lincoln (questionable)



A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or eternal invader.


-- Samuel Adams (questionable)
[this can be found in Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., The Writings of Samuel Adams (1908), Vol. 4, p. 124 -- Cliff Walker, May 1, 2002]



I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens.
-- Thomas Jefferson (questionable)



America is great because she is good. and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great.
-- Alexis de Toqueville, Democracy in America (definitely not in the book; perhaps in other more obscure writings; questionable)







Bogus Quotes
by Richard S. Russell


The following quotations were popularized by David Barton of WallBuilders, a fundamentalist Christian-action group in the camp of Christian Reconstructionism, a movement founded by R.J. Rushdoony to return the United States to its supposed Christian roots. As reported in the July / August 1996 issue of Church & State Magazine, Barton has since admitted that the quotations are spurious.



Save this list. If you encounter these quotations in use, challenge them.

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"
-- Patrick Henry

"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."
-- George Washington

"Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise. In this sense and to this extent, our civilizations and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
-- Holy Trinity v. U. S. (Supreme Court case)

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves ... according to the Ten Commandments of God."
-- James Madison

"Whosoever shall introduce into the public affairs the principles of primitive Christianity will change the face of the world."
-- Benjamin Franklin

"The principles of all genuine liberty, and of wise laws and administrations are to be drown from the Bible and sustained by its authority. The man therefore who weakens or destroys the divine authority of that book may be assessory to all the public disorders which society is doomed to suffer."
-- Noah Webster



"There are two powers only which are sufficient to control men, and secure the rights of individuals and a peaceable administration; these are the combined force of religion and law, and the force or fear of the bayonet."
-- Noah Webster

"The only assurance of our nation's safety is to lay our foundation in morality and religion."
-- Abraham Lincoln

"The philosophy of the school room in one generation will be the philosophy of government in the next."
-- Abraham Lincoln

"A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or eternal invader."
-- Samuel Adams


[this can be found in Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., The Writings of Samuel Adams (1908), Vol. 4, p. 124 -- Cliff Walker, May 1, 2002]



"I have always said and always will say that the studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make us better citizens."
-- Thomas Jefferson



"America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."
-- Alexis de Tocqueville





America: Not a Christian Nation!
by Dean Worbois
from the PostFun Home Page


No one disputes the faith of our Founding Fathers. To speak of unalienable Rights being endowed by a Creator certainly shows a sensitivity to our spiritual selves. What is surprising is when fundamentalist Christians think the Founding Fathers' faith had anything to do with the Bible. Without exception, the faith of our Founding Fathers was deist, not theist. It was best expressed earlier in the Declaration of Independence, when they spoke of "the Laws of Nature" and of "Nature's God."

In a sermon of October 1831, Episcopalian minister Bird Wilson said, "Among all of our Presidents, from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism."

The Bible? Here is what our Founding Fathers wrote about Bible-based Christianity:

Thomas Jefferson:

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
-- Six Historic Americans by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

Jefferson again:

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

More Jefferson:

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Jefferson's word for the Bible?

"Dunghill."

[Editor's note: Jefferson used this word to describe what he considered false teachings placed into the mouth of Christ, as opposed to what he considered the true teachings of Christ. He never used this word to describe the entire Bible.]

John Adams:

"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

Also Adams:

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states: "The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Here's Thomas Paine:

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)." "Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)." "It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible." "Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance." And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

Finally let's hear from James Madison:

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy." Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote: "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Among those who confuse Christianity with the founding of America, the rise of conservative Baptists is one of the more interesting developments. The Baptists believed God's authority came from the people, not the priesthood, and they had been persecuted for this belief. It was they -- the Baptists -- who were instrumental in securing the separation of church and state. They knew you can not have a "one-way wall" that lets religion into government but that does not let it out. They knew no religion is capable of handling political power without becoming corrupted by it. And, perhaps, they knew it was Christ himself who first proposed the separation of church and state: "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's."

In the last five years the [Southern] Baptist [Convention] ha[s] been taken over by a fundamentalist faction that insists authority comes from the Bible and that the individual must accept the interpretation of the Bible from a higher authority. These usurpers of the Baptist faith are those who insist they should meddle in the affairs of the government and it is they who insist the government should meddle in the beliefs of individuals.

The price of Liberty is constant vigilance, folks. Religious fundamentalism and zealous patriotism have always been the forces which require the greatest attention.

© 1994 Worbois



The writings of Thomas Jefferson exist in 25 volumes. The references for this article were found in the book, Six Historic Americans by John E. Remsburg (who interviewed many of Lincoln's associates). Much of his work on Jefferson came from The Memoirs, Correspondence and Miscellanies from the Papers of Thomas Jefferson, 4 volumes ed. by Thomas Jefferson Randolph (the grandson of Thomas Jefferson).


© PostFun 1995 All Rights Reserved





Treaty of Tripoli
November 4, 1776-1996
by Ed Buckner



"As the government of the United States is not in any sense
founded on the Christian religion..."
-- George Washington



The Treaty of Tripoli. The treaty was signed on November 4, 1796, two hundred years ago, near the end of Washington's second term. Since it was unanimously ratified by the U. S. Senate the next spring and signed and proclaimed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797....[W]e urge everyone to be aware of all the facts and of the objections (shown below in quotation marks) raised by Christian-nation mythologists. Since most of those objections have some grain of truth to them but are nevertheless misleadingly used, they need to be considered one at a time:

"The words, 'As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion...' were almost certainly written by an obscure poet known to keep company with men attacked as having the reputation of being atheists."

The author, who wanted very much to be remembered primarily as an epic poet rather than as an "obscure" one, was Joel Barlow, the U.S. diplomatic representative assigned the task of reaching peace with the pirates of the Barbary coast. He wrote the words as a part of Article 11 of a Treaty with Tripoli agreed to on November 4, 1796. Barlow was a good friend of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, and James Monroe. When the French radicals arrested Thomas Paine it was Barlow that Paine hurriedly entrusted with the manuscript of the first part of The Age of Reason. Barlow may have been an atheist himself or, more likely, a deist--and that may have somehow had something to do with the great controversy and mystery surrounding the existence of the famous Article 11 (see last objection, below).

"It's just a widely circulated but discredited myth that President George Washington ever wrote the famous words."


According to Paul Boller, in George Washington and Religion (1963), "Very likely Washington shared Barlow's view, though there is no record of his opinion about the treaty." Unfortunately someone, perhaps an overzealous freethinker, circulated the words as a Washington quote, no doubt because the words were composed during the end of Washington's second administration. Some of the true circumstances surrounding the treaty text (see below) make the quote a more effective weapon against Christian-nation mythologists than if it had been a mere Washington quote.

"Only four years after the Treaty of Tripoli we're discussing was proclaimed, Tripoli declared war on the U.S. (so it was not really much of a success as a treaty) -- and the treaty we're discussing was superseded by a second treaty with Tripoli a few years after that, so it no longer has any legal force. Subsequent treaties did not contain these words and in fact one or two even contained allusions to the 'Trinity.'"


These points are all accurate, but all of them miss the mark nevertheless. Later treaties with Russia or Great Britain, which were then Christian nations, had the ceremonial allusions to the Trinity that such nations would want, but these had no treaty declarations of any kind of Christian status for the U.S. The significance of the words in Article 11 of the 1796-97 treaty is not that those words created a non-Christian nation or gave us a godless government -- it was the U.S. Constitution and First Amendment that did that. The significance lies in the fact that these words were used, apparently to reassure a Muslim power, and broadly accepted in the U.S., less than a decade after the Constitution was adopted and only five or six years after the First Amendment was approved. It is the strong reinforcement of the plain original intentions of the framers and founders that is significant.

"The Treaty was in Arabic, and few if any Senators in 1797 read Arabic."

The original was in Arabic, but the English translation, written by Joel Barlow, is the version voted on by the Senate, signed and approved by the President (by then John Adams) and proclaimed to the nation on June 10, 1797. It is the English translation that was reprinted in newspapers of the day and has always been treated as the official treaty in all U.S. records and reprints of treaties.

"Only 23 Senators in all voted for the treaty. And only one of Georgia's Senators voted for the treaty, and he left the Senate after that term, never to return."


These points are also technically accurate, but very misleading. All Senators present (the Senate had far fewer members in those days) voted, in a rare recorded vote, in favor of the treaty. One of Georgia's Senators was absent because of his alleged involvement in the Yazoo land fraud scandal; Georgia's other Senator, Josiah Tattnall, chose not to run for re-election, but was thereafter elected as Governor of Georgia. Though a young man--one of Georgia's youngest governors--he died shortly after that. Tattnall County was named after him, as were various streets and squares in Georgia.

"There seems not to have been any debate or dispute over the treaty in the Senate--and recorded votes generally occurred only when there was serious disagreement. The Senate voted on the treaty only nine days after receiving the treaty from the President, and without recording any consideration of the [in]famous Article 11."


The points, while literally true, very much support the argument of separationists. The recorded vote was only the third unanimous recorded vote (out of thousands of votes and 339 recorded votes) in the history of the U.S. Senate to that point. (The fourth such unanimous recorded vote, the next year, was one honoring George Washington.) The Journal of the Executive Proceedings of the United States Senate clearly specifies that the treaty was read aloud on the floor of the Senate and that copies of the treaty were printed "for the use of the Senate." Nor is it plausible to argue that perhaps Senators voted for the treaty without being aware of the famous words. The treaty was quite short, requiring only one or two pages to reprint in most treaty books today--and printed, in its entirety, on but one page (sometimes the front page) of U.S. newspapers of the day. The lack of any recorded argument about the wording, as well as the unanimous vote and the wide reprinting of the words in the press of 1797, suggests that the idea that the government was not a Christian one was widely and easily accepted at the time.

"The original treaty had nothing in it about Christianity and no one really knows how the 'not in any sense founded on the Christian religion' bit got into later translations."


This is the most serious objection and the one the Christian-nation mythologists cling to the most desperately, but even if true, it is ultimately irrelevant. The surviving copy of the Arabic treaty does have a strange, non-treaty-like letter -- a page of gibberish -- where Article 11 should be. It is true that no one knows why. The mythologists never speculate that a possible explanation is that some Christian, offended by the Article, destroyed it and replaced it with the crude Arabic "letter" now found there. That could have happened in 1796 or 1797 or much later on (the strange Arabic "substitution" was discovered in 1930); it matters but little anyway. There is no dispute whatsoever about the fact that the words, "As the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion, ..." were in the English version unanimously ratified by the Senate and they were in the English version signed and proclaimed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797 (his proclamation ended with the sentence, "And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof"). And those famous Article 11 words were reprinted throughout the U.S. in the newspapers of the day.

We have checked these details carefully and assure everyone that they are accurate and defensible. The Atlanta Freethought Society is not suggesting that this treaty (or the Constitution that preceded it) makes the U.S. government anti-Christian nor that it should be. For the sake of everyone's liberty, the government is--and must remain--neutral regarding religion....

[Jet17 Profile]

Upload to Disclose.tv

Paul Harvey, a Professor of History at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs, wrote a piece for Religion Dispatches explaining that Barton is not in any sense a historian, but rather a propaganda artist who seeks to create the impression that there is some sort of "debate" over the issue of America's identity as a Christian nation that he can use to promote his right-wing political agenda:

Barton’s intent is not to produce “scholarship,” but to influence public policy. He simply is playing a different game than worrying about scholarly credibility, his protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. His game is to inundate public policy makers (including local and state education boards as well as Congress) with ideas packaged as products that will move policy.

Historical scholarship moves slowly and carefully, usually shunning the public arena; Barton’s proof-texting, by contrast, supplies ready-made (if sometimes made-up) quotations ready for use in the latest public policy debate, whether they involve school prayer, abortion, the wonders of supply-side economics, the Defense of Marriage Act, or the capital gains tax. ...

In short, perhaps the best way to understand Barton is as a historical product of Christian providentialist thinking, one with significant historical roots and usually with a publicly convincing spokesman. He is the latest in a long line of ideologically persuasive spokesmen for preserving American’s Protestant character ... The Christian Nation “debate” is not really an intellectual contest between legitimate contending viewpoints. Instead, it is a manufactured “controversy” akin to the global warming “debate.” On the one side are purveyors of a rich and complex view of the past, including most historians who have written and debated fiercely about the founding era. On the “other side” is a group of ideological entrepreneurs who have created an alternate intellectual universe based on a historical fundamentalism. In their drive to create a usable past, they show little respect for the past as a foreign country.

That point was echoed by Randall Stephens, an Associate Professor of History at Eastern Nazarene College, who has no time for Barton's "kindergarten" understanding of history or his "hyper-politicized work":

Barton does not recognized the idea that the past is like a foreign country. Instead Barton tends to flatten out time and space and make it almost seem as if the Founders are our contemporaries, motivated by the same concerns that motivate us now. Yet people in the past--whether we're talking about leaders of Bronze Age tribes or bewigged 18th century nabobs who tinkered on their mansions, read Montaigne in their spare time, or enjoyed arm-chair speculation about nature and providence--are not the same as us. This seems like a kindergarten point, but it's apparently lost on David Barton.

...

Nearly any trained historian worth his or her salt who takes a close look at Barton and his hyper-politicized work will see glaring gaps in what he writes and talks about. He dresses his founders in 21st-century garb. He's not interested in knowing much about the history of colonial America or the US in the early republic. Why? Because he's using history to craft a very specific, anti-statist, Christian nationalist, evangelical-victimization argument in the present. (Remember the many unconfirmed quotations Barton used in the 1990s? He did so because, first and foremost, he was trying to make a political point.)

In history circles this is what we call "bad history."

Finally, John Fea, author of "Was America Founded As a Christian Nation?: A Historical Introduction," and Associate Professor of American History at Messiah College, has been writing an ongoing series debunking Barton's appearance on "The Daily Show," along with a piece warning Christians not to fall for his propaganda:

Wallbuilders is a political organization that selectively uses history to promote a religious and ideological agenda. Barton believes that America's last, best hope is a return to its so-called Christian roots. In his most famous book, Original Intent, Barton argues that the removal of Christianity from the public square has resulted in a rise in birth rates for unwed girls, a spike in violent crime, more sexually transmitted diseases, lower SAT scores, and an increase in single parent households. And he has convinced thousands and thousands of Christians that he is right.

Barton claims to be a historian. He is not. He has just enough historical knowledge, and just enough charisma, to be very dangerous. During his appearance on The Daily Show, Barton impressed the faithful with his grasp of American history and his belief that Christians are being subtly persecuted in this country. But if you watch the show carefully, you will notice that Barton is a master at dodging controversial questions. He refuses to admit that sometimes history does not conform to our present-day political agendas.

...

Here is the bottom line: Christians should think twice before they rely on David Barton for their understanding of the American founding. Let's not confuse history with propaganda.

As Fea says, "the more popular Barton becomes, the more his views will be debunked by what I am imagining will be an ever-growing chorus of critics" ... but that task sure would be made easier if Republican leaders like Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, and Mike Huckabee would stop actively embracing and promoting Barton's pseudohistorical propaganda.

[Noentry Profile]

Great post.
The founding fathers were educated men.
History would have have taught them that religion mixed in with government is the single most destructive force this world has every seen.

Jet I think you are bang on the money

[Jet17 Profile]

Great post.
The founding fathers were educated men.
History would have have taught them that religion mixed in with government is the single most destructive force this world has every seen.

Jet I think you are bang on the money

I still don't like them owning slaves, but it was a sign of the times.

Much like being gay 50 years ago was tantamount to being a radiated mutation.

Just think of what may be stupid to those 200 years from us.

[Spock Profile]

Good find Jet. I will circulate that back to the same sources from which I received it.