How Christian Were the Founders?

[Marcus Bryant]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/14/ma...1&ref=magazine

[Marcus Bryant]

In fact, the founders were rooted in Christianity — they were inheritors of the entire European Christian tradition — and at the same time they were steeped in an Enlightenment rationalism that was, if not opposed to religion, determined to establish separate spheres for faith and reason. “I don’t think the founders would have said they were applying Christian principles to government,” says Richard Brookhiser, the conservative columnist and author of books on Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris and George Washington. “What they said was ‘the laws of nature and nature’s God.’ They didn’t say, ‘We put our faith in Jesus Christ.’ ” Martin Marty says: “They had to invent a new, broad way. Washington, in his writings, makes scores of different references to God, but not one is biblical. He talks instead about a ‘Grand Architect,’ deliberately avoiding the Christian terms, because it had to be a religious language that was accessible to all people.”

Or, as Brookhiser rather succinctly summarizes the point: “The founders were not as Christian as those people would like them to be, though they weren’t as secularist as Christopher Hitchens would like them to be.”

[Marcus Bryant]

Besides the fact that incorporation by reference is usually used for technical purposes rather than for such grandiose purposes as the reinterpretation of foundational texts, there is an oddity to this tactic. “The founders deliberately left the word ‘God’ out of the Cons ution — but not because they were a bunch of atheists and deists,” says Susan Jacoby, author of “Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism.” “To them, mixing religion and government meant trouble.” The curious thing is that in trying to bring God into the Cons ution, the activists — who say their goal is to follow the original intent of the founders — are ignoring the fact that the founders explicitly avoided religious language in that do ent.

[spursncowboys]

Is there any group before the Chistians who fought racism? Were they the first? Peter and Paul were the first civil rights leaders.

[Marcus Bryant]

Probably the Greeks. Yes, there were slaves, but AFAIK race wasn't the issue.

And I guess I'm unblocked now.

[Marcus Bryant]

Maybe not "fought" so much as it wasn't a major concern. It seems like as though during the Enlightenment slavery had to be rationalized, and what better way than creating the inferiority of the race you were enslaving?

Though, yes, the influence of certain Christians in opposing slavery, at least in these United States, is overlooked.

[PixelPusher]

Christianity would have remained a small sect among a handful of Jews if not for that liberal internationalist Paul.

[ploto]

the influence of certain Christians in opposing slavery, at least in these United States, is overlooked.

Likewise, then, the influence of certain Christians in supporting slavery, at least in these United States, is overlooked.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure. Though I believe that was a result of a desire to read into the faith what was not there. A practice which continues to this day.

[sabar]

18th century? The existence of a creator is assumed as fact. The founders didn't use specific language so they wouldn't step on any protestant/catholic/orthodox/jewish toes. Remember what happened in the centuries prior. An "Abrahamic God" was assumed to be a fact, but what sect should the state be with? None, of course.

This language would conveniently work out later as people of a ton of foreign religions flocked to the country along with their immigrant vessels. The fall of religion as the world becomes more learned brings this whole situation into the spotlight (atheists vs God).

These are indisputable facts:

1. The founders were largely Christian protestants
2. The existence of a god was assumed at the time
3. The founders left out specific references to Christianity

They were very Christian, but that doesn't matter. The state was clearly created with no religion in mind.

The problem is that nuts try to turn the second point (everyone believed a god at the time) into some sign that the cons ution was bestowed by God himself and that the state should champion Christianity.

I contend that any and all references to god in any state do ents/currency/mottos/songs are purely a sign of the times and nothing more. There is nothing to indicate otherwise.

No god in the cons ution can't be any clearer. There will never be a Church of the United States, as there is a Church of England.

[spursncowboys]

Isn't that funny that peter denied God three times, but makes his stand against eating pig and hanging out with uncir cised people. Just shows religion was messing it up back then too.

[Marcus Bryant]

No god in the cons ution can't be any clearer. There will never be a Church of the United States, as there is a Church of England.

Right.

Not to mention that the state church of England lacks in attendance while in the US, they're packing them in.

Still, the Cons utional framework stands the test of time, to the chagrin of Falwell and friends. No state church, but personal liberty to believe as you wish.

[spursncowboys]

Probably the Greeks. Yes, there were slaves, but AFAIK race wasn't the issue.

And I guess I'm unblocked now.

they wouldn't let me.

[PixelPusher]

Sure. Though I believe that was a result of a desire to read into the faith what was not there. A practice which continues to this day.

The slave owners quoting specific Biblical passages that acknowledge the ins ution of human slavery as the norm leveled the same charge against Abolishionists and their airy, fairy "interpretation" of the Bible.

[spursncowboys]

The slave owners quoting specific Biblical passages that acknowledge the ins ution of human slavery as the norm leveled the same charge against Abolishionists and their airy, fairy "interpretation" of the Bible.

they would had to of completely left out the new testement. that wasn't the case.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure, you can find what you want in the Bible, especially if you dig into the OT. However, what would be in line with Christ's teaching?

[PixelPusher]

they would had to of completely left out the new testement. that wasn't the case.

A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)

[PixelPusher]

Sure, you can find what you want in the Bible, especially if you dig into the OT. However, what would be in line with Christ's teaching?

(read with Southern drawl)

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base su ions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1Tim. 6:1-5)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. ( us 2:9-10)

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)

(btw, SnC, these are all New Testament verses.)

[Bartleby]

And this little gem from Deuteronomy:

"Thou shalt not deliver unto his master the servant which is escaped from his master unto thee." (23:15-16)

[Marcus Bryant]

That's cool. What did Christ say?

[spursncowboys]

16 “Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves, so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 Beware of men, for they will deliver you over to courts and flog you in their synagogues, 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them and the Gentiles. 19 When they deliver you over, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say, for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour. 20 For it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 Brother will deliver brother over to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death, 22 and you will be hated by all for my name's sake. But the one who endures to the end will be saved. 23 When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes.

24 “A disciple is not above his teacher, nor a servant [4] above his master. 25 It is enough for the disciple to be like his teacher, and the servant like his master. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign [5] those of his household.
Have No Fear

26 “So have no fear of them, for nothing is covered that will not be revealed, or hidden that will not be known. 27 What I tell you in the dark, say in the light, and what you hear whispered, proclaim on the housetops. 28 And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in . [6] 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a penny? [7] And not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. 30 But even the hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear not, therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows. 32 So everyone who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven, 33 but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven.

Like this one the new testiment was written for the slaves and not the slave owners.

[PixelPusher]

Damn, I haven't read the Bible in years, but I DID read it. And I have access to Google. Why am I always more informed about what's actually in the Bible than all the Christians on these boards?

[Marcus Bryant]

Read in an effete, urbane, Yankee sneer...

"If you want to be great, you must be the servant of all the others. And if you want to be first, you must be the slave of the rest. The Son of Man did not come to be a slave master, but a slave who will give his life to rescue many people." (Matthew 20:26-28, CEV)

"Whoever wants to be first among you must be the slave of everyone else." (Mark 10:44, NLT)

[PixelPusher]

That's cool. What did Christ say?

A disciple is not above the teacher, nor a slave above the master (Matt. 10:24)

Who then is the faithful and wise slave, whom his master has put in charge of his household, to give the other slaves their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master will find at work when he arrives. (Matt. 24:45-46)

[spursncowboys]

Book of Matthew was written for the Jews. It was focused on all of Jesus' prophesies he fulfilled.