Indexes
February 8th, 2010
February 6th, 2010
February 5th, 2010
February 4th, 2010
February 3rd, 2010
February 2nd, 2010
February 1st, 2010
The following stories have received the most reader comments during the last 7 days.
- President Obama's first year (67)
- Lodi Unified School District president issues warning to speakers over cuts (64)
- Will terrorists be given Miranda warnings? (64)
- Local business leaders say tourism, Costco, Home Depot may play roles in city's future (58)
- Islamic symbol in mosaic — what is all the fuss? (49)
- Writer comments on Neely column (42)
- The Home Depot hopes to join Costco at Reynolds Ranch (39)
- Police: Train victim was a Lodi teen (32)
- We need to conduct respectful conversations (30)
- Tasered suspect claims he is Yosemite Sam (25)
ADVERTISEMENT
Founding Fathers were not deists
Monday, November 23, 2009 6:05 AM PST
On Nov. 5, Alexander Hunt stated in his letter that most of the Founding Fathers were deists. None of the Founding Fathers he listed fit this description.
George Washington was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12,1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn "above all" was the religion of Jesus Christ.
In Ben Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the necessity of a public religion" and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.
James Madison trained for the ministry with the Rev. John Witherspoon, and Madison's writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and Christ.
John Adams, signer of the Declaration, said, "I will avow that I then believed and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."
Thomas Jefferson said, "I am a real Christian, that is to say a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ."
Thomas Paine, in his discourse on "The Study of God," forcefully asserts that is "the error of schools" to teach sciences without reference to the being who is author of them: "For all the principles of science are of divine origin." Paine not only believed in God; he believed in a reality beyond the visible world. Paine is possibly your best argument for a deist.
As for the rest of the founders mentioned, none fit the definition of a deist. And as typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over 200 founders (55 at the Constitutional Convention, 90 who framed the First Amendment and Bill of Rights, and 56 who signed the Declaration). Again, go to www.wallbuilders.com and see the documents for yourself.
When we write in with these letters, we should all do our homework first. It is important to state facts and not just our own beliefs.
John Krueg
Lodi
Search for Ads 
Today’s Print Ads 
RSS Feeds
Reader Feedback
sparky595 wrote on Nov 26, 2009 1:27 PM:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/GW/gw004.html "
Brian wrote on Nov 24, 2009 9:14 PM:
" Or Thomas Jefferson for that matter. He liked the Christian ideas a lot, but found it incompatible with reason.
He actually wrote his own version of the bible which removed the parts that claimed the divinity of Christ and the parts in which he performed acts he believed were not possible.
I guess you could say he "appreciated" Christ's contributions, but as written, he didn't even really believe in him. "
-Hmm, No personal interpretation here.
OKAYYYYYYYYYYY LFT!!!! "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Nov 24, 2009 2:02 PM:
"while you are certainly free to interpret the Constitution however you see fit, I contend that "diversity" was the furthest thing from the minds of those who authored it if we apply today's definition to the term."
I haven't really provided my own interpretation here, so I'm not sure what your disagreeing with.
If you mean to say that the first amendment somehow protects some people more than others, I will tell you that you are incorrect.
I have a constitutionally protected right to believe whatever I want, just as much as anyone does. That's what I mean when I say it protects diversity.
We, the religious and non-religious alike, are protected from a state religion by the constitution. That protection is so important for our freedom, whatever race, religion or creed we ascribe to.
You might call this "progressive" but I would contend it's and idea at least 222 years old. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Nov 24, 2009 1:54 PM:
Also, he makes mention of it in his letter to Charles Thomson on January 9, 1816. That is the same letter that the famous "I am a real Christian.." quote that wallbuilders.com finds so significant.
If you read the whole letter, you can see in context what he meant was that he and NOT the supposed Christians of the day was a true believer in christian principals, if not necessarily in the bible or in the Christ that is portrayed there.
He really didn't like the bible and the dogmas contained therein, but as you said, that is not at question here. "
rantraves wrote on Nov 24, 2009 12:57 PM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 24, 2009 12:54 PM:
The First Amendment protects freedom of religion "for" the people; not to the government to regulate it. It does not in any way offer as an underpinned notion that they were attempting to be diverse - that's a liberal (aka "progressive"), feel-good and perversely radical notion that has nothing to do with such freedom. In fact, I would go so far as to insist that liberalism and all it entails is designed to limit individual freedoms. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Nov 24, 2009 12:09 PM:
He actually wrote his own version of the bible which removed the parts that claimed the divinity of Christ and the parts in which he performed acts he believed were not possible.
I guess you could say he "appreciated" Christ's contributions, but as written, he didn't even really believe in him. "
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Nov 24, 2009 12:06 PM:
Then you make further my point.
You state that "all appreciated the contributions of Christ". You state an absolute as if it were fact, when facts are rarely absolute.
Thomas Paine for one, very likely did not "appreciate" or even believe in, the "contributions of Christ" "
rantraves wrote on Nov 24, 2009 11:37 AM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Nov 24, 2009 11:11 AM:
"I would submit their belief structures may very well have played an important role as the cornerstone was laid"
Their beliefs absolutely played an important role. I'm just tired of these arguments about who may or may not have been Christian.
There are some who obviously were, and many who obviously were not, and most who it is less obvious.
People who try to paint it one way (they were all secularists!!) or another (they were all Christians!!) are being disingenuous.
Our country was, and still is a nation of diversity. The constitution specifically addressed and protected this diversity, which is why it was and still is one of the most powerful documents to ever grace our blue planet. "
sam wrote on Nov 23, 2009 5:58 PM:
I would love to suggest that you leave your job and find a new one. No one should ever feel abused or unappreciated at their work place. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 23, 2009 4:11 PM:
After all, the First Amendment (as it pertains to religious freedom) has been debated for weeks now on this very forum. "
Bob Hussein Loblaw wrote on Nov 23, 2009 3:08 PM:
yeah you wrote on Nov 23, 2009 2:06 PM:
LodiFreeThinker wrote on Nov 23, 2009 1:42 PM:
It is a right wing slanted revisionist site that has been discredited multiple times.
Gets some better citations and actually try reading a book once in a while.
The Founding Fathers were men from many religious, political and ideological persuasions.
As different as they were, they agreed on some pretty important things. Things that are actually more important then who was or who wasn't a Christian. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 23, 2009 1:04 PM:
" Mazie - with all due respect, your analysis is just plain wrong
Indeed. "
Lodian wrote on Nov 23, 2009 12:33 PM:
rantraves wrote on Nov 23, 2009 11:53 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 23, 2009 10:55 AM:
rantraves wrote on Nov 23, 2009 10:49 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 23, 2009 10:37 AM:
jrs wrote on Nov 23, 2009 10:31 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 23, 2009 10:13 AM:
He did reveal his apparent unhappiness with his job that might make him "feel" like a slave to his employer. But unlike those who were truly enslaved, torn from their families and homes, chained in the bellies of slave ships like sardines, forced to work obscene hours, raped, housed in shacks with little creature comforts like heat during incredibly cold winters and tortured for little or no reason, all Mazie needs to do is quit and find a different job (or just be thankful he has employment). Hardly a reasonable comparison.
But then again, I believe Mazie needs to clarify his remarks if he desires to settle the matter. "
rantraves wrote on Nov 23, 2009 10:00 AM:
mike wrote on Nov 23, 2009 9:24 AM:
It is obviously beyond me to know where his eternal soul will reside.
I am guessing we both lifted his quotes out of cyberspace, and being unsure of where you got his quotes, may I direct you to a website where his published writings can be read and their date of publication along with a little history of the man.
http://www.ushistory.org/PAINE/
but really Leonard, what disservice could I possibly be doing to poor old Thomas Paine by quoting his more Christian writings? "
jrs wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:59 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:53 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:49 AM:
I think he's confused and misguided, but not malevolent in his thinking. After all, he did try to explain his position. One purpose of this forum is to consider all ideas - good and bad - and then discuss them as rationally as possible. Who knows, maybe Mazie (and others) might learn something. Just how crazy is that?!? "
alf wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:43 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:41 AM:
It sounds as if you're justifying ripping people away from their homes and their countries, holding them prisoner for generations because the end result is that their descendants now enjoy a United States free from slavery. That I cannot agree with. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:36 AM:
Such an idea is patently absurd as we can only be responsible for what we do; not something that anyone else does. "
Mazie wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:35 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:26 AM:
Mazie wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:24 AM:
sam wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:10 AM:
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:09 AM:
If so, then anyone working for anyone else for remuneration forms a slave owner/slave relationship. Likewise, all of this "volunteer" work that people do under the guise of community improvement also forms such a relationship.
Now, unless Yeah You has grabbed someone off the street, held them against their will and then forced them to perform these chores, then he's doing nothing more than providing someone with the opportunity to work.
Your analysis is fatally flawed. "
sam wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:08 AM:
IMHO I think you are confused as to what a slave really is. "
Jerome R. Kinderman wrote on Nov 23, 2009 8:01 AM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 23, 2009 7:48 AM:
" So what if they were slave owners? That is what they did back then. Do you ever have someone clean your house or your yard? Then you, too, are a slave owner. Dork. "
????
I think the conservative rhetoric on these blogs has hit a new low. I wonder, well any of the conservatives here step up to the plate? "
rantraves wrote on Nov 23, 2009 7:21 AM:
Mazie wrote on Nov 23, 2009 7:19 AM:
yeah you wrote on Nov 23, 2009 7:02 AM:
They are dead. Leave the country to the living. "
Leonard wrote on Nov 23, 2009 6:19 AM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 23, 2009 6:14 AM:
Leonard wrote on Nov 23, 2009 6:12 AM:
mike wrote on Nov 23, 2009 3:48 AM:
For myself, I fully and conscientiously believe that it is the will of the Almighty that there should be a diversity of religious opinions among us. It affords a larger field for our Christian kindness; were we all of one way of thinking, our religious dispositions would want matter for probation; and on this liberal principle I look on the various denominations among us to be like children of the same family, differing only in what is called their Christian names. "
Comments on this story are now closed.