The last thread was closed, but I wanted to respond to this from wowitsdark:
With respect to the first sentence, what do you mean by "as their core"? Their core what? Their personal core values? So what?

As for your Adams quote, it didn't specify "Judeo-Christian values" and furthermore, it went on to say, "The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue."

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Absolutely. Their personal core values. I realize you are not a person of faith, so this is not something that you can comprehend.

Before they even set pen to paper to devise our constitution, they issued this little document explaining the very rationale for the 'right' they believed they had to break away from England. It was their motivating factor. It was an explanation for where they believed they got 'permission' to cut those ties.

Did you catch that? They stated that the very purpose of Government is to secure the rights granted by the Creator. If that's not 'at their core' I don't know what is.

You are incorrect and arrogant to assume that because I'm an atheist that I have no values. I have much stronger values than many people "of faith".

Creator does not equal Judeo-Christian values.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

I don't see where she said you have no values she said no Faith I am pretty sure simply meaning "no faith in God".

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

Naturally, you assumed something that was totally off the wall, or at least you are pretending to. I feel a little silly spelling it out for you here because I do believe you know what I was saying, but just to be clear:

THEY believed in a Creator. You do not. Therefore, you really cannot fully appreciate the depths of that connection between *faith* in a *creator* and the tie between that and the *core values* that stem from it. You can probably intellectually process it... but you don't live it from your very soul, so there are just some aspects of this issue that you are not capable of really 'getting'. If you don't believe in the existence of God, you won't - CAN'T - experience it.

Certainly, you can have 'values' absent faith... but THEIR values DID stem from their FAITH. It's right there in black and white whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

And again... given that these men were not Muslim nor were they Buddhist or Hindu or Native American.... just what "Creator" do you think they were referencing?

I'm not sure that she meant you have no values if she did I find that despicable (maybe that's too harsh of a word but it's the one that comes to mind). A person doesn't have to believe in a supreme being to have values.

ETA I may be naive but I can't believe she would actually think you have no values. She seems a reasonable intelligent person.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

Thanks, anna. I do believe I'm reasonable, and I think recorded history bears out that by and large, the founders were Christian men. I really don't see why there is such a huge wish to discount that fact. They were what they were. They just.... were.

I guess I don't understand the desire to try to refute that history. Nobody is saying that because *they* believed on the same God that Christians acknowledge as the "one true God" that the poster must arrive at that same belief system to be an American or anything.

It's just *fact* that as they sat around trying to discern whether or not it was acceptable to break free from England that in the end, they decided that God made them, that God granted them some rights that are separate and apart from government, and that a good government is one which seeks to protect those rights. Once they came to that conclusion, they decided that in fact it *was* morally and ethically acceptable to cut ties with 'the mother land'... and they all signed off on a document stating those very reasons.

Then they set out to form a new earthly government whose foundations were framed in such a way that those Creator-bestowed unalienable rights could be protected. It was their religious foundation that drew them to the conclusion that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were the 'rights' their Creator had given to mankind.

One does not have to agree with their rationale to agree with their conclusions about whether or not those three rights are worth protecting.

ETA: Anna, you are right. I did not say she has no values. Many of the values she holds are very, very different from mine. Very, very, very different from mine... but I know that she has a core set of beliefs from which she does not waiver.

I don't think it necessarily despicable to say someone has *no* values. There are people who do shift like sand and can't ever hold anything as "true"... which means whether they advocate that something is right or wrong shifts with their mood, with what they want on any given day, etc. That does not describe jujubee - she is very consistent in that which she advocates. I disagree with her almost all the way down the line... but unquestionably, she does have a set of 'core values.'

But will you concede that most people do think that "creator equals Judeo-Christian values"?

Good question, KellyJef.

From my perspective, when I say that it was *founded* on Judeo-Christian values that were the 'core' of the belief system of the founders, this is an example of what I am referencing....

There are unquestionably cultural differences that impact interpretations of what constitutes appropriate Christian behaviors even within the Christian faith itself. An example of this is a woman's role within her home, and whether she is 'subservient' to her husband or not. Bible verses related to this topic are often interpreted differently depending on the culture a particular Christian has lived in. Our country's founders lived in a much different time and no doubt had a different mentality about what the Christian religion dictated was appropriate regarding women.

But they were what they were, and the result of that was that they devised a governmental structure in which women couldn't vote. They based that on *their* interpretation what they believed to be true in their core... and those 'truths' stemmed from their culture, and were based on the commonly-accepted, supposedly-Biblically-based beliefs about the 'position' of a husband 'over' a wife.

That's not one of the values they espoused that stemmed from the Judeo-Christian positions of their time that makes ME feel particularly warm and fuzzy today... and in fact, MY Judeo-Christian values lead me to the conclusion that they were mis-interpreting God's intention for a number of Bible verses... but it doesn't change the fact that for *them*, the influence of the key religion of their respective motherlands - Christianity - heavily influenced the laws, rules, and regs they set forth, and gave them 'permission' to start a new nation in the first place.

It just.... is what it is.

There's nothing to concede. 33% of people identify themselves as Christian, less than 1% identify themselves as Jewish. Even if you assume they all think Creator equals Judeo-Christian values, 34% isn't most.

My apologies to wowitsdark for jumping to conclusions regarding her assumptions of my values. I've had others claim that atheists by mere virtue of the fact that they don't believe in a God are devoid of values. Thus my interpretation of your statement. Sorry.

Again, as my original quote pointed out, it was specifically stated by John Adams that the country was not founded on the Christian religion.

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

maybe I'm just jumping in here with no real reason to...but hey, I am who I am!

Our country was founded by men who were Judeo-Christian in their beliefs. They wanted freedom to practice their chosen religion (and one can presume it was a Judeo-Christian religion) as they saw fit. These men did not want the king or the church running their lives. They were still Judeo-Christian--they just wanted the ability and freedom to practice their beliefs the way they wanted.

While I don't think these men wanted religion in government, to assert that the basis of their principles, ideals, beliefs, etc., weren't founded in a Judeo-Christian mindset, seems terribly naive to me.

I'm agnostic for the most part....w/ leanings toward Judeo-Christian beliefs (it's hard to NOT have those beliefs when you are raised in a church, w/ parents who are ministers! LOL).
I do understand why and how people can or cannot believe the founding of our country was based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and tenets. But, history speaks for it's self. The men who founded and crafted the Constitution were Christian--hence it stands to reason that those men fell back to their Christian beliefs when crafting the Constitution and building the framework of a new country.

__________________
Mental that one, I'm telling you. ---Ron Weasley, "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets"

Alrighty. We're in a good place with this.

Your original quote IN NO WAY POINTED OUT THAT JOHN ADAMS STATED THAT THE COUNTRY WAS NOT FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION.

Yes, I was yelling.

I believe when you posted that quote you were doing something that I myself am sometimes guilty of doing, and you presented it as though you are uber-educated in the Treaty of Tripoli. Actually, your original post called it "Treaty of Tripoli." I didn't call you on it, assuming it was a typo. We all make those. Regardless, you threw that quote out there as though you are an expert on the treaty. I did not challenge you because - I freely admit - I had never heard of the Treaty of Tripoli myself and so I just took you at your word.

Mistake #1 on my part.

I just spent a fair amount of time reading up on that treaty. First of all, in this thread you say that John Adams STATED that the US was not founded on J-C values. John Adams did NOT make that statement. He did NOT write the Treaty of Tripoli. It appears that it was in fact authored by one Joel Barlow, a US diplomat. It was apparently fashioned between him and an author for the 'other side', who wrote the version the 'other side' signed off on in Arabic.

The Arabic version does not contain Article 11 at all. There is some meandering writing between Articles 10 and 12 in the Arabic version, but it does not translate to say the same thing our Article 11 says.

Regardless, the version containing what is known as "Article 11" is what was presented to congress and voted upon. They ratified it. John Adams, the president, then signed it as a treaty outlining the relationship between the US and the Barbary Powers. The Muslim Barbary Powers (Tunis, Morocco, Algiers, and Tripoli) were warring against the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States), often capturing American cargo vessels and killing 'Christian' American sailors. This was what first led George Washington to assert our need for military naval vessels.

Apparently we attempted a number of treaties with the Barbary nations, but they were not favorable to us, nor were they very successful. The earlier attempts at some form of peace with them consisted of us agreeing to pay huge sums of money to them if ever they caught our cargo ships and claimed we had violated this or that.

Ultimately, Joel Barlow had a lightbulb moment. America did not form a federal system of laws that had a tie to Christianity. It left the ability to form a religious tie to the STATES, and specifically prohibited the FEDS from establishing anything, religiously, that would override that state right. His 'lightbulb' moment was that because the feds did not own that power, the US could not be seen as being established, federally, as a Christian nation.

The rationale the Muslim Burbaries were using to come after our ships was the fact that they viewed us as being like the European nations that DID, on a FEDERAL level, have a declaration regarding a Christian tie.

By spotlighting the fact that the US, as a *nation*, had not made that specific declaration (despite the fact that all but one of our STATES had created a religious tie to a Christian denomination), the Muslims could not rightfully include America in its Holy War against England, France, Spain, and Denmark.

Those other nations REQUIRED that all of their citizens BE of the religion identified as the national religion. The Barbary Powers REQUIRED that all their citizens BE Muslim. America made no such requirements, even though the founders obviously approved of a government/religion tie on a non-federal scale. The founders themselves paid taxes to support clergy and provide for houses of worship within their separate STATES.

But the Treaty of Tripoli was our attempt to use the fact that no FEDERAL religious distinction had been made, and therefore the Muslims had to exempt us from their Holy War in the late 1790's that was being waged as revenge for the crusades.... in which the US hadn't participated since it was not even a nation at that time.

SO... to sum this up.... John Adams did NOT write those words. A diplomat did. The point of penning them - in the midst of information about passport acceptance between the Burbary nations and the US, protections afforded to the crews of various vessels, and statements about commerce - was to get them to quit killing our people in the name of THEIR religion by claiming that our federal government had declared the US to be a nation that required its citizens to be Christian. It was NOT meant as an edict regarding religion in America.

Yes, John Adams signed the treaty after congress voted to affirm it. But to imply that it represents his PERSONAL convictions about the Creator and the rationale behind founding the United States is a huge stretch.

To say that the US was founded on Judeo-Christian VALUES is not to say that the founding documents created an explicit tie to a religion. But the *perspective* of the founders was that of people who were raised in a Judeo-Christian atmosphere and culture. Their laws represented what they saw as *just*. Had Native Americans or Muslims or any other group written our founding documents, they would have looked much different than they do.

I don't doubt that their upbringing influenced them. But to say the country was founded on Judeo-Christian values is different from saying the founders were influenced by their beliefs. Fifty-five percent were Episcopalian/Anglican. Perhaps we should say that the country was founded, predominantly, on Episcopalian/Anglican beliefs. If so, perhaps schools should offer Holy Communion and those who refuse to partake can be labeled as "overly sensitive" and those who agree that it's inappropriate can be labeled "too PC." Geez, it's just a cracker. Don't be so sensitive!

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Interesting....

I just came across this quote that Adams made to Jefferson, specifically in reference to the US's conflict with the Barbarys:

Researching that period in our history this afternoon has been particularly fascinating in light of where we are today in our relationships with Muslim nations. I'm really amazed at how little has changed in 2+ centuries.

General William Eaton was a key military figure in our battle. When our Sec. of State (Thomas Pickering) queried as to why the Barbary fighters were so tenacious, Eaton told him, "Taught by revelation that war with the Christians will guarantee the salvation of their souls, and finding so great secular advantages in the observance of this religious duty [the secular advantage of keeping captured cargoes], their [the Muslims'] inducements to desperate fighting are very powerful."

So basically... our politicians decided to sort of twist the truth. I mean.... they really didn't twist it... but they attempted, in words, to distance themselves from the religion to which they most all belonged as a means to get those of the Muslim persuasion bent on killing them to 'like them' more.

"Us? Christians? Seriously? You thought that? Heck no. Not us.Whatever we once were, we are no longer a Christian nation – at least, not just. We are also a Jewish nation, a Muslim nation, a Buddhist nation, and a Hindu nation, and a nation of nonbelievers. So like really, dudes... you hafta like us. No more hatin', kay?"

Sounds a little like Peter. Perhaps the cock will crow when this happens again in 200 years.

What's the difference between: Treaty of Tripoli and "Treaty of Tripoli"? I copy and pasted your text. Either I'm going blind or you are. They're identical, aren't they?

Also what's the nonsense about uber educated?

__________________
If this is going to be a Christian nation that doesn't help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we've got to acknowledge that He commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, and then admit that we just don't want to do it.

- Stephen Colbert.

Sorry - I did a Find and Replace and it replaced my quote of what you originally stated. I'm working today and shouldn't be trying to maintain two trains of thought at once! lol

I believe your original quote in the other thread called it "Treaty or Tripoli". You stated - and I quote word for word - "The Senate's ratification was only the third recorded unanimous vote of 339 votes taken. " I googled that sentence in quotes. It's from Wikipedia.

The first time you brought John Adams and the Treaty of Tripoli into the discussion on the board here, you stated, "As the Treaty or Tripoli, signed by President John Adams on June 10, 1797, reads...." Your post read - to me, at least - as though you were just citing John off the top of your head, as though you are extremely well-acquainted with the history of this issue and are not just shooting from the hip based on your personal bias against religion.

I gave you credit, if only in my mind, for being something of an 'expert' on the topic, even though I believe your conclusion to be inaccurate.

But apparently you are just like the rest of us, given to googling up something that fits the point you are trying to make, and then cutting and pasting it here. I don't mind when people do that, but when things are presented as though they come from your personal knowledge bank I am apt to give bonus credibility points. I need to be slower on the draw with those points.

In THIS thread, you seemed to forget that John himself did not pen or say those words. He simply signed a treaty that someone else wrote that contained them.... but in this thread, you said, "...as my original quote pointed out, it was specifically stated by John Adams...."

Had you been speaking from your own personal deep knowledge bank of this topic, I don't believe you would have mis-stated that John Adams specifically stated those things.

So.... I'm takin' those bonus points I gave you back. That's all.

This is absolutely fascinating to me.

John Adams apparently penned the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. In it, this is what he wrote:

I assume this document does not still stand in its original wording, but one could make a case that it DOES say that in Mass., every denomination of CHRISTIANS lives equally under protection of the law. It ONLY specifies that CHRISTIAN denominations have this protection.

I realize this is not a FEDERAL document. It is, however, a document penned by John Adams, and in a discussion about his beliefs, well.... I think it has a little bit of relevance.

Gotta get back to my 'real work'.... but thanks for sending me on this journey to find out some of the background of our nation that I only knew on a shallow level before today.

Sorry.... I'm just really distracted by this topic today, and had to come back and mention this.

The preamble to the Mass. Constitution says this:

In other words....they were devoutly imploring (meaning 'asking') for "His" (given the fact that it is capitalized, I assume this reference is to the Judeo-Christian God) direction.... and establish the following.... declaration of rights and frame of government.... for their state.

Apparently very few changes were made to his original draft. One of them was that they brought Jefferson's Declaration of Independence "all men are created equal" language into their state constitution, a divergence from Adam's "born equally free and independent." Adams did not believe that all men were created equal, even though he believed that God regarded all men equally in his eyes. He believed that all men should be regarded with equal consideration under the law.... which is not the same as being *created* equally. Obviously, some are 'created' with more capabilities than others, but he believed none should receive special consideration under the law.

Anyway... the Mass. governmental frame is quite similar to that of the US, with legislative, judicial, and executive branches. Adams 'asked God' (paraphrase of the above quote) for direction in establishing a 'frame of government', and the one that was subsequently devised largely mirrors the one used by the federal government.

That just might lead one to assume that Adams believed that "He" directed the federal set-up.

wowitsdark-thanks for all your posts and information. It's been very informative!

Welcome, kts.

I think this is really interesting:


Sounds like John Adams did not believe one could divorce God and morality from each other.

This is very interesting as most of us that don't major in American History only get a fraction of what happened and since I went to school in the 60s and 70s some of what I was taught is now being questioned.
Thanks wow for doing the research.

__________________
The political system is broke and it's a joke.

I would have to say that the founders were all Christians, but were exceptionally careful to avoid reference to any religion in the drafting of the Constitution. Jefferson was a Deist. He thought that God had long ago absented Himself from this world. Franklin once made a speech hoping that Islam would establish mosques in Philadelphia. They sure didn't found a Christian nation. They bent over backwards

What we commonly refer to as morality is inherent in many groups of animals. Justice is a big factor in all kinds of different non human social groups.Members of the group that misbehave (and you have to have a concept of proper behaviour in order to recognize the opposite when you see it) are punished. Injustice is met with sympathy. What passes for morality in Christianity, don't kill each other, don't take what doesn't belong to you, is universal among all groups of animals including humans.

Morality is not a unique feature of Christianity. Apparently many in the Republican party think that they live in a Christian nation. They're always trying to get the 10 commandments prominently displayed in public buildings. They insisted on putting "in God we trust" on our money and slipped "under God" into the pledge of allegiance during the 50s.

Christians are about 76% of the population.

Actually, those things aren't universal among all groups of people.

I am unabashedly Christian, but admit to being a bit confused about the ten commandments issue. It's a set of Jewish laws. Admittedly, most of them are repeated somewhere in the New Testament (all but the one about remembering the Sabbath)... but those commandments were issued through Moses to the Jews.

I find this quote to be as accurate as any as I have encountered, from my perspective, regarding Thomas Jefferson and "Deism":

I got that quote here: The religion of Thomas Jefferson, third U.S. President

I find the entire discourse on that page to be fascinating. It sounds like Jefferson was - in his own words - "a sect by myself, as far as I know." He was raised Christian - in the Episcopalian aka Anglican denomination - but came to develop some leanings that were more of the Unitarian bent. However, the Unitarians of that day were not like the modern-day Unitarians. They were, apparently, a Christian denomination that would have been considered more liberal than others... but not so liberal that one would claim Unitarianism and not embrace Christ. Today, Unitarians do not claim the Judeo-Christian God is the one true God, but rather accept any number of depictions of 'the creator' as valid if that's what someone believes in.

But apparently, though his heart was of the Unitarian mindset of the day, there were no Unitarian churches in Virginia, so he was never a member of a Unitarian church.

He was an ardent follower of the teachings of Christ, but did not believe that Christ was a divine being.

I found this statement to be fascinating:

The rationale they held behind *not* wanting ministers to be paid behind the state was the fact that the creation of a disconnect between the source of their pay (taxes) and and the 'heart and soul' of the reason they would have been drawn into the occupation (helping people) ultimately was the demise of the profession. They knew they would be paid by the state, regardless, so the incentive to care about the parishoners was removed and things went downhill.

They had observed this chain of events in Europe and for this reason, were not all that comfortable with their new nation allowing ministers to be tax-supported.

That's the very reason many of us on the conservative side of the aisle do not wish to see government involved in 'charitable endeavors'.... from housing to welfare to health care, when government becomes the 'funder', the end result is often not aligned with the original intent.

Loved reading all the info and really agree with the above statement.