America was built on God.

“However, all of them lived in a Christian culture, and virtually all settlers were Christians, so America has always been a de facto Christian nation.”

 

Mm, a certain kind of exceedingly annoying Christian. IE the Mayflower mob were puritans. They set the standard for the worst of American culture.

America has always had a majority of people who called themselves Christians. That is a long way from the US being a Christian nation.

A couple of quotes I think have merit:

“Christianity; Possibly a goo idea if somebody tried it” (George Bernard Shaw)

 

“Christian; One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbour. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin” (Ambrose Bierce"

"…the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…”

Founding Father and Second POTUS, John Adams

 

Just because our current POTUS can hardly make a public statement without lying, it doesn’t mean our 2nd POTUS was a liar.

@Advocatus

Slaves were certainly thought of as people, albeit inferior ones. Not sure from what era. In the immediate antebellum southern states, slaves were counted in the census as 3/5 of a white person. They were certainly deemed to have souls, as they were taught Christianity. The [white ] preachers taught them that slavery was their proper station, and preached against the great crime of “theft of self”. IE absconding.

White slave owners justified slavery by claiming slaves were “children of Ham”. A monumental piece of opportunistic biblical misinterpretation even for those troglodytes.

Good thing they weren’t interpreted to be “children of bacon” or whitey would likely have to add cannibalism to his sin of slavery.

Patrick, I agreed with you until I did a little research on Jefferson and the Constitution and now I disagree on a few points. I found the only way to study the past is with timelines of all the common factors. That’s because everything changes all the time, but all common factors do not change at the same time. I need to know the level of the caste in the colonies.

What I have found that was interesting to me is, we almost never referred to America in that time period as Colony of Virginia, New Netherland, New Amsterdam, Massachusetts Bay Colony, Rensselaerswyck, Province of Maryland, Connecticut Colony, Colony of Rhode Island, Providence Plantations, to name some.

Some notes. Many whites in England, Ireland and British North America were indentured servants. Between 50 and 67 percent of white immigrants to the American colonies, from the 1630s and American Revolution, had traveled under indenture. Ref: Galenson 1984

While slaves existed in the English colonies throughout the 1600s, indentured servitude was the method of choice employed by many planters before the 1680s. Ref: ushistory.org

As many as 75% of the population of some colonies were under terms of indentured servitude. Criminals convicted of a capital crime in England could be transported in lieu of a death sentence. African slaves made up less than 7% of the population. Vagabonds in England were sentenced up to 14 years as indenture servants by the English courts.

What I found was the political and economic actions in Europe was controlling the migration to the colonies. Because of the high rate of criminals, it was not look at as a good place to move to. Viewed more as criminal colonies and revolutionary religious cults.

Religion.

Jefferson’s Virginia was undergoing a revolution by racial caste, common people embraced evangelicalism, which allowed them to shape their culture and their spiritual life rather than be forced to depend on the mediations of political and religious elites.

The churches that these early Baptists and Methodists formed were close-knit biracial communities. Often black church members outnumbered white members, and blacks preached to whites. (In fact, nearly a third of all Methodists in America in 1800 were black.)

Blacks and whites embraced one another as “brothers” and “sisters” in Christ: being “born again” elevated all believers to a common level. In their churches blacks and whites testified and prayed together, were baptized in the same ceremonies, were held to the same moral expectations, and were buried in the same cemeteries.

Just as important, this early interaction profoundly and permanently influenced the style and substance of southern evangelical Christianity. Even though black and white churches separated after the Civil War, both continued to bear the stamp of early integration.

Point being. The enforcement of The Laws of God or Natural Laws was creating Progressives and allowing for Humanism to be formed in Europe. The Middle Class was new, and England was somewhat handling it, but France was not. The Laws of God was ending slavery in Europe and slaves were being moved to the colonies while the contracts still had value.

Sally Hemings was a slave at Monticello; she lived in Paris with Jefferson and two of his daughters and she had at least six children. I have not found out yet if she was a European slave or an African slave.

TimB, are you referring to the Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676?

Whenever someone says America is a Christian nation, I ask, which denomination? There never was a Christian culture. Christians argued among themselves just like everyone else. Here’s an excerpt from a brief history that I wrote:

Roger Williams was the pluralist, an idea that had roots with the Anabaptists, but had little other expression throughout history. He was pluralist only when it came to politics though. He was just as exclusivist as his rivals, John Cotton and John Winthrop, when it came to religion. In the end, Williams and his followers were branded the dissenters and were “purged”. A fairly peaceful purging as purges go. They founded Rhode Island. The basis of the exclusivists argument was that people needed to be compelled to follow the precepts of the government or God would be displeased and the government couldn’t function. Williams agreed with “Thou shalt not kill”, but said the first few commandments were about human duties to God and that government had no business with them. He did not see this as a contradiction with the idea of being religiously exclusive.

John Winthrop wrote about the “city on a hill” they had created. That city would watch over and govern the purity of religious observance. Flogging and mutilation or even death were punishments for disobedience. This was the state’s job. Williams, on the other hand, wrote “The Bloudy Tennant for Persecution of Conscious”, and defended his position.

TimB, are you referring to the Bacon’s Rebellion in 1676?

 

No, more like 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon in flight of thought. The “children of Ham” lead me to think of a tastier form of pork. The “children of Pork Chops” would also have sufficed.

Interesting post.

I wasn’t aware of the level of indentured servants in early settlement.

However, I did say that I wasn’t sure when slaves were deemed 3/5 of a white person. I would have thought from perhaps the early to mid nineteenth century.

Been looking for references for the claims made above. Can’t remember where I got the information. Can’t seem to find sources at the moment . Consequently , my claims may be dismissed pending credible evidence.

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

“Between 1625 and 1866 12.5 MILLION salves were shipped the 'the New World”. 26% were children."

 

The link below gives some fascinating information about slavery in the US

https://www.theroot.com/slavery-by-the-numbers-1790874492

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

The Wiki article linked below seems OK, worthreading.

“By the time of the American Revolution (1775–1783), the status of slave had been institutionalized as a racial caste associated with African ancestry.[1] When the United States Constitution was ratified in 1789, a relatively small number of free people of color were among the voting citizens (male property owners).[2] During and immediately following the Revolutionary War, abolitionist laws were passed in most Northern states and a movement developed to abolish slavery. Northern states depended on free labor and all had abolished slavery by 1805. The rapid expansion of the cotton industry in the Deep South after the invention of the cotton gin greatly increased demand for slave labor to pick cotton when it all ripened at once, and the Southern states continued as slave societies. Those states attempted to extend slavery into the new Western territories to keep their share of political power in the nation. Southern leaders also wanted to annex Cuba as a slave territory. The United States became polarized over the issue of slavery, split into slave and free states, in effect divided by the Mason–Dixon line which delineated (free) Pennsylvania from (slave) Maryland and Delaware.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States

 

((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((9)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

 

“Blacks and whites embraced one another as “brothers” and “sisters” in Christ: being “born again” elevated all believers to a common level. In their churches blacks and whites testified and prayed together, were baptized in the same ceremonies, were held to the same moral expectations, and were buried in the same cemeteries.”

Now that’s news to me. Never heard of that before. Could you expand on that a bit? IE when and where, how widespread? Most importantly, your sources please. (plural)

@mikeyohe

I agree that the US as a nation has never ben Christian nation in the way you describe. However ,it’s fair to say that the normative values of the US have always been based on Judaeo-Christian morality. The broad influence of Christianity is based (to this day) on Calvinism.

I formed my view at least in a part from Max Weber’s “The Protestant Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism” .This was required reading in my studies at university.

The dominant Christianity of America has always been protestant.

I think Weber is pertinent to the US. So did the American Sociologist Talcot Parsons ,among others.

 

Read, accept, accept modified, or reject’ it’s simply one approach, which makes sense to me. You may differ.

 

"The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (German: Die protestantische Ethik und der Geist des Kapitalismus) is a book written by Max Weber, a German sociologist, economist, and politician. Begun as a series of essays, the original German text was composed in 1904 and 1905, and was translated into English for the first time by American sociologist Talcott Parsons in 1930.[1] It is considered a founding text in economic sociology and sociology in general.

In the book, Weber wrote that capitalism in Northern Europe evolved when the Protestant (particularly Calvinist) ethic influenced large numbers of people to engage in work in the secular world, developing their own enterprises and engaging in trade and the accumulation of wealth for investment. In other words, the Protestant work ethic was an important force behind the unplanned and uncoordinated emergence of modern capitalism.[2] In his book, apart from Calvinists, Weber also discusses Lutherans (especially Pietists, but also notes differences between traditional Lutherans and Calvinists), Methodists, Baptists, Quakers, and Moravians (specifically referring to the Herrnhut-based community under Count von Zinzendorf’s spiritual lead).

In 1998, the International Sociological Association listed this work as the fourth most important sociological book of the 20th century.[3] It is the 8th most cited book in the social sciences published before 1950.[4]"

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protestant_Ethic_and_the_Spirit_of_Capitalism

Patrick,

I agree that the US as a nation has never ben Christian nation in the way you describe. However ,it’s fair to say that the normative values of the US have always been based on Judaeo-Christian morality. The broad influence of Christianity is based (to this day) on Calvinism.

 

It all depends. Isn’t Judaeo-Christian just an acceptable term for the Greek Hellenistic movement? The Christian movement started about sixty years before Jesus. The Judaeo-Christian thinking was political control method to manage civilizations. I like to think of it as the Hellenistic-Christian thinking. Or put in simpler terms. The Atheist vs the Deity management of the Laws of God. This is two different pathways of looking at the Laws of God. The old way and the new way. The old way, God was viewed as “knowledge”. The new way, God was viewed as a “deity”. Jefferson was clear on having America taking the old pathway. But both pathways were taken in America. Our Constitution is of the old pathway and after the Civil War the people switch to the new pathway in what I call a Christian bubble. Like the housing bubble. We have not yet come out of that bubble.

Note; In the painting at some of the oldest Churches in Europe. You see Jesus with light and clouds. The light is Gnostic. The clouds are Gnostic clouds. When enough knowledge is gathered in one place it forms a cloud of knowledge and omits light. The light is knowledge going to the people. That is old pathway stuff. Point being, the old pathway was always around because the church understood that that people were not ready to give up the old pathway. Gnostic just means “knowledge”.

Calvinism,

But herein lies the problem: The sovereign God of the Bible and the sovereign God of Calvinism are two very different Gods. Calvinists have redefined the meaning of the word sovereignty. To the Bible-believing Christian, sovereignty simply means God’s ability and right to rule the world (chapter 5 of You Are A Theologian: Thinking Right About God). However, to the devoted Calvinist, sovereignty means “divine determinism.” Divine determinism is the belief that God determines, causes, and orchestrates everything in history according to His preconceived plan, including sin and evil.

 

Calvinists erroneously believe that God is the reason for sin, since – according to Calvinism – “sovereignty” is somehow synonymous with “total control.” Thus, they create a false dichotomy,[4] claiming that if God is sovereign, He must orchestrate and control everything that ever happens – and if He does not control everything, He supposedly cannot be sovereign. Arthur Pink, a famous Calvinist, writes, “Only two alternatives are possible: God must either rule, or be ruled; sway, or be swayed; accomplish His own Will, or be thwarted by His creatures.”[5] In the words of Jack Cottrell, Calvinists “equate sovereignty with causation, and say that the only way for God to be sovereign is if He is the sole, ultimate cause or originator of everything that takes place, including events in the natural world as well as human decisions.” Consequently, Cottrell continues, “there is no truly free will”[6] for mankind in the Calvinist worldview. https://plainsimplefaith.com/calvinism/

Point being, in NT vs OT people also see two different gods sometimes. Maybe this is caused by the pathways using the same God.

America was built on Masonic Principles ;- )

http://jbeard.users.rapidnet.com/bdm/Psychology/mashist.htm

Ignoring, and even twisting the facts of history, "Christian" dominionists quote some of the founding fathers whose words seem to indicate faith in Jesus Christ. But many quoted were Freemasonswho highly regarded Jesus as a man who attained the highest degree of moral enlightenment.

The words of many Freemasons might lead the uninformed to believe that they are true brethren in Christ. An example is this statement from a Masonic publication:

God may have other words for other worlds, but His supreme Word for this world, yesterday, today, forever, is Christ! He is the central Figure of the Bible, its crown, its glory, its glow-point of vision and revelation. Take Him away and its light grows dim. He fulfilled the whole Book, its history, its poetry, its prophecy, its ritual, even as He fulfills our deepest yearning and our highest hope. Ages have come and gone, but He abides-abides because He is real, because he is unexhausted, because He is needed. Little is left today save Christ-Himself smitten and afflicted, bruised of God and wounded-but He is all we need. If we hear Him, follow Him, obey Him, we shall walk together in a new world wherein dwelleth righteousness and love-He is the Word of God (Joseph Fort Newton, “The Great Light in Masonry,” Little Masonic Library, Vol. 3, p. 177).


Here’s something interesting:

20 GREATEST NAMES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION

John Adams - Spoke favorably of Freemasonry -- never joined Samuel Adams - (Close and principle associate of Hancock, Revere & other Masons Ethan Allen - Mason Edmund Burke - Mason John Claypoole - Mason William Daws - Mason Benjamin Franklin - Mason Nathan Hale - No evidence of Masonic connections John Hancock - Mason Benjamin Harrison - No evidence of Masonic connections Patrick Henry - No evidence of Masonic connections Thomas Jefferson - Deist with some evidence of Masonic connections John Paul Jones - Mason Francis Scott Key - No evidence of Masonic connections Robert Livingston - Mason James Madison - Some evidence of Masonic membership Thomas Paine - Humanist Paul Revere - Mason Colonel Benjamin Tupper - Mason George Washington - Mason Daniel Webster - Some evidence of Masonic connections Summary: 10 Masons, 3 probable Masons, 1 Humanist, 2 Advocates of Freemasonry, 4 no record of connections.

America was built on a false belief in god, but on a true belief in democracy.

“America was built on a false belief in god, but on a true belief in democracy.”

Well the first belief is an unfalsifiable claim IE The existence of god can’t be proved or disproved. Therefore we may not reasonably claim such a belief is false. If you make such a claim, you attract the burden of proof.

The notion of democracy in the 18th century seems to have been based on “Athenian democracy”, which could more properly be called “government by referendum”. Neither women nor slaves voted…

The democracy of the founding fathers meant the vote went to free male land owners. The claim that America was built on a belief in Democracy is literally true, but misleading.

 

“America was built on a false belief in God…” An unfalsifiable statement? The existence or non-existence of God may elude proof. However, not all conflicting conceptions of God can logically be considered to be true. Some of them, at least, must be false.

In the American colonies, there were various beliefs in God. Puritans, Quakers, Baptists, Lutherans, Catholics, Episcopalians, and others. All contributed in some way to the building of America. Each claimed to be true. Some believed they were exclusively true. Each belief system was different to some degree. So, logically, all of these, various different, conflicting beliefs in God, most claiming to be the incontrovertible word of God, could not be true. In fact most must have been, at least, partially false. Hence, to the extent that all of the religions played some part in the building of America, and a good portion of them being false as determined by basic logic, the statement is at least partially true.

Except, of course, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, who is the One True God, who, in Holy Wisdom, disguised him/her/LGBTQself as the God described within the various belief versions of the religions of the time. Now He/She/It is certainly unfalsifiable in His/Her/It’s Holy eternal Truth.

Iow, all of those colonial religions were false representations that were determined by the One True Spaghetti Monster God of all time and the Universe, to play their part . Lo! All who disbelieve in Him/Her/It, bow in servitude if you cannot prove Him/Her/It to be false.

“However, not all conflicting conceptions of God can logically be considered to be true. Some of them, at least, must be false.”

 

Indeed. Which one’s of those were held by the founding fathers? I don’t think that dog hunts. I think it might be a straw man. My assertion was, and is, that the existence of god is unfalsifiable. We have no way of knowing which, if any concepts are false, each has to be tested in turn.

The claim" "some must be false"is of limited use. Logic may only be used to arrive at truth IF the premise is true.

If multiple belief systems conflict with each other, each claiming to be absolutely true, how can they all be true? Who says that each belief system has to be tested in turn in order to realize that not all of them can be true? Seems like a sound premise to me that multiple fundamentally conflicting beliefs cannot all be true.

If there is a piece of fruit in a box, and 5 psychics are asked to say what fruit that they are sure is in the box. They each give a different fruit as their answer. The box can never be opened. We can never prove what fruit is in the box. I’m sure that at least 4 of them are wrong.

" I’m sure that at least 4 of them are wrong."

Positive claim; you have the burden of proof. For all I know, they might al be true. A logical contradiction? Yes, but logic does not provide truth UNLESS the premise is true.

The best that can be reasonably said is {and which is my position} I don’t believe any of of them to be true based on lack of evidence. I may not reasonably claim any are false unless I can prove it, which I cannot.

That’s my position. Haven’t really got any more to say. I think we may need to agree to differ

 

 

 

Well, I guess I will need to respect your willingness to abandon logic. If the psychics all assert that there is one and only one piece of fruit, and each says that it is a different piece of fruit. Then it may be, as u said, that none are correct. The premise is that 1 piece of fruit can only be what it is. It cannot be 5 different pieces of fruit. I can therefore reasonably claim that at least 4 of the psychics are, for sure, wrong, tho I cannot say which psychic is not wrong.

That seems damn reasonable to me, and what I have proven is that, at least 4 out of the 5 psychics are not so good at their psychic ability. Tho 1 of them may be a great psychic (idk).

America was built on Masonic Principles

CC, I have not gotten into the Masonic thinking or methods yet. What you are saying sounds possible by the names you listed, but the facts are not there. Things are changing all the time. Therefore, a timeline will need to be created for the Masonic thinking. The Masonic thinking of two hundred years ago may not be the same as today’s understanding.

The court system has two lawyers. The defender and the prosecutor. If we talked about the court system and just called them both lawyers, it could get very confusing. Yet that is what is done with the two pathways of religion. Now say we wanted to understand a court case from 100 yrs. ago where they were both called lawyers. We would have to establish common factors to figure out which lawyer was the defender, and which was the prosecutor.

Common factors work very good at separating the two pathways in religion. From the beginning of time the word god has always meant “knowledge”. Knowledge was used to manage the human factors for building civilizations. Example, when the Hyksos brought the hybrid olive to Egypt the protein levels went way up. New towns were being built everywhere god (knowledge) was. But no new cities where God (deity) was. Egypt was a good example. Ra is all about “knowledge”. Moses was all about “deity”. I would have kicked Moses out too.

Religions today have both GODS. Jesus’s system was that God had to be controlled by god. And that is the system we are using today. And it works great.

If religion today has both GODS, like the prosecutor and defender, it all depends on which one the people are giving the most power to.

The Holy Roman Empire is an example, and yet today the Catholic Church is also a country. Because it uses god to control God. The Jewish religion use God to control god. And they did not build towns.

Jefferson understood this. That is why he created the Jefferson Bible. The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth. It is a deist bible about god and has God removed.

Where are the town of the Puritan and Quaker religions?

When it comes to the Masonic.

Freemasonry is not a religion, nor is it a substitute for religion. It requires of its members a belief in God as part of the obligation of every responsible adult, but advocates no sectarian faith or practice. Masonic ceremonies include prayers, both traditional and extempore, to reaffirm each individual’s dependence on God and to seek divine guidance. Freemasonry is open to men of any faith, but religion may not be discussed at Masonic meetings. https://www.msana.com/religion.asp