Yeah, while neglecting to offer citation for some other tidbits it offered (if you’re going to say that the DoI referred to God 4 times, it bolsters your argument to actually include them).
Damn straight I would. Judging from the other content on that website, and the rigorous citations offered in that particular essay, I’m not overly moved to believe it. I similarly wouldn’t take as fact something offered up by Militant Atheists Against Religion that said none of the Founding Fathers was religious in any sense and that John Witherspoon was actually an atheist who tried to infiltrate the church for a serial novel he was writing.
And I guess it should also speak volumes that several of our members here are Reverends as well, right? Revtim, chique, and Max Torque are all Reverends in the ULC.
Ah, yes. “If you want to know more about my argument, go read about it.” You want to talk about something being a matter of public record, you want to put something in your argument, then you do it. I’m not doing your homework for you:)
Sounds like this guy thinks that every day should be Jesus Day. It isn’t about the 4th specifically, it’s about remembering Jesus’ sacrifice above anyone else’s. However, ISTM to be cautioning against putting those who died for this country above or on the same level as He Who Died For Everyone (as opposed to He Who Shall Not Be Named).
Although, Dr. Witherspoon was a Presbytarian minister, and I think it’s safe to say that the 18th century Presbytarians stressed Christian orthodoxy a little more than the ULC does.
Once again, I’d like to point out that people here are very quick to demand hard-core cites that some of the Founding Fathers espoused Christian beliefs. At the same time, they are not so quick to demand evidence from people like RealityChuck, who say that the Founding Fathers did not believe in Jesus as a personal Savior.
Golly gee. I guess burden of proof only goes one way, right?
iampunha, if you want to berate me for not having time to dig up exhaustive references for the various Founding Fathers (of which there are over 50), then fine. Berate away. However, I must ask why you do not display the same annoyance at those who make the opposite claim, even though they have not provided a single hard-core cite in their defense.
So much for honest pursuit of the truth, eh? So much for the non-partisanship that gobear demands we pursue.
BTW, I’m still wondering if t-bonham@scc.net or someone else can substantiate the claim that the fourth verse of the Star Spangled Banner was not authored by Francis Scott Key, but was tacked on long after his death. I’m willing to believe that it’s so, if it turns out to be true, but all the references I’ve found so far attribute all the lyrics to Francis Scott Key.
Note, BTW, that I’m not berating t-bonham@scc.net for failing to produce this evidence on short notice. I do want to arrive at the truth, though – and unlike some of the people here, I’ve shown that I’m willing to entertain evidence from both sides.
Darn right. Moreover, the point is not that the title of “Reverend” automatically means that someone espoused Christian beliefs, just as church membership does not automatically indicate such. However, this is the more common and natural assumption to make, especially for people from that more conservative and less religiously pluralistic era. If someone has the title of Reverend, then this does not constitute proof of that person’s religious leanings, but it is a pretty good indicator, and a critic should not be so quick to say, “Oh, that person does not believe in Jesus. Heck no.”
Again, it boils down to burden of proof – the burden of which has been laid down in a decidedly lopsided and partisan manner, in this thread.
Nobody here denies that " some of the Founding Fathers espoused Christian beliefs", so knock off the bait and switch. What is being denied is the typical fundie claim that the FFs intended American to be a Christian nation and that they embraced 21st century evangelical Christianity. You’ve already admitted that there was a wide spectrum of belief among the FFs from Deism to traditional Christian orthodoxy, so your ingenuous posting that people here (meaning me, I suppose) deny that any of the FFs were devout Christians is just plain dishonest.
Some of them were; others, including the leading FFs like Jefferson and Franklin, were not. You’ve already acknowledged that, haven’t you?
As for RealityChuck’s claims the the FFs didn’t accept a personal Jesus, well, he’s right. You fundies commit the sin of attributing contemporary mindsets to men who lived in a very different intellectual climate 200 years ago. In the 18th-century, Jesus was far more remote as an object of Christian worship than he is as the Buddy Christ of 21st-century fundies. Be clear on this–we’re not saying that the FFs unanimously denied Jesus’s divinity or His role as savior because clearly many were devout in their faith. What we’re saying is the idea that fundies today espouse–“it’s a relationship, not a religion,” “Jesus is my pal”–are not 18th century concepts and that the FFs did not see Jesus the way you do. Fundies today claim a far more intimate relationship with Jesus that would have seemed impious and disrespectful to men of 200 years ago.
Pointing out your inaccuracy isn’t weaseling. You can’t say you emphasized lack of orthodoxy among the FFs when you spent the previous 3 paragraphs trying to demonstrate the exact opposite thesis.
All I’m saying is that I don’t get my cites from sources biased against religion, so you shouldn’t get yours from sources that are biased for religion, especially fundie Web sites that are unable to distinguish between history and myth.
He can’t substantiate his claims because they are false. But hey…what’s a little lack of evidence if you get a chance to do some “fundie” bashing?
In the interest of fighting ignorance:
There WERE at least two additional stanzas added later, one by George Spowers and one by Oliver-Wendell Holmes. Neither are used regularly. (and neither contains a reference to God)
Y’know, this debate about the good Reverend Witherspoon can be resolved easily. Some intrepid soul merely has to go down to Hollywood and look up his descendant Reese. I’m sure she can clear this up right quick.
Hey Qadgop, have you got a scan of the ad, or an online version? Or perhaps you could quote a few lines out of it? It’d be nice to see what we’re discussing…
RealityChuck specifically said that the Founding Fathers did not believe in Jesus as a personal Savior. My point is, was, and has always been that this is a gross oversimplification and a severe misrepresentation of the truth. You’re the one who’s engaging in “bait and switch,” as we’ll see below.
Again, nonsense. Nobody said such a thing in this thread. The OP said nothing about the Founding Fathers, nor did it say anything about their intent to establish a Christian nation. For my part, I was specifically replying to RealityChuck’s claim, which has yet to be substantianted.
Now, what were you saying about “bait and switch”? Hmmm?
And how many references have you cited in defense of that statement? Let’s see… None. Zero. None whatsoever. You have been exceedingly quick to demand secular, non-partisan cites from me, and yet your claim regarding 18th century Christianity remains thoroughly unsubstantiated.
gobear, I would like to hold you to the very same standards which you have been demanding throughout this thread. Please produce some scholarly, non-partisan cites which specifically demonstrate your claim that the Founding Fathers did not espouse a personal Savior, and we’ll take it from there. So far, you have produced exactly none.
Again, you’re misrepresenting what I said. My fourth paragraph stated that some of the Founding Fathers rejected Christian beliefs, and the precedign three paragraphs demonstrated that others did. Obviously, this is not “the exact opposite thesis,” as you dishonestly claim. Rather, those statements are complementary, rather than antagonistic.
And I did emphasize the beliefs of Jefferson et al. Granted, the majority of my posting was not dedicated to them, but still, I went out of my way to state, with great emphasis, that Jefferson, Ethan Allen and company did not accept Christian theology. This was not the primary emphasis of my posting, but it’s something which I drew attention to nonetheless.
Emphasis is not based solely on the percentage of paragraphs used, gobear. Take note, and let that sink in.
Well, since you haven’t provided any cites so far (apart from your statements regarding Jefferson et al, which were never under debate), then the veracity of your new claim is rather difficult to establish.
An online version of “The Lakeshore weekly”? Bwa haa haa!
Here’s the message. I am reproducing it verbatim, with the printed capitalization and punctuation, and trying to reproduce it as it appears line by line.
John 8: 31-32 The First Independence Day
"July 4th is coming
What more is there to say.
For we are here to celebrate
Our Independence Day.
I have somthing important to
say
About this holiday.
A person is not being
recognized
For what we got today.
Though many people died
To give us liberty.
We must remember one who
gave it all
So our freedom we could see.
Jesus Christ is the one
A name like no other.
He went to battle for our souls
And a eternal home for all our brothers
We must not forget what He
did
The price He paid was high.
For in the battle against sin
On the cross, He died
We must not forget
The stories must be told.
We cannot forget the fallen
Whether be young or old.
So when July 4th comes
And fireworks fill the sky.
Remember ALL who gave
Remember All who died."
It closes with the author’s name, and the fact that he’s a member of a specific Orthodox Presbyterian church. It then church location, service time and date info, and contact information, along with the pastor’s name and phone number.
So you can see I may have, uh, overinterpreted it a bit in my zeal in my original post, injecting some of my own assumptions. But I still find it characteristic of so many of my kin here, endeavouring to inject Jesus into secular moments.
So the OP said nothing about the Founding Fathers, nor did the newspaper article which inspired this thread. Neither one claimed that the USA was meant to be a Christian nation. And of course, none of my postings made that claim either; indeed, I explicitly stated that not all the Founding Fathers were Christians.
So much for the claim that this thread is about “the typical fundie claim that the FFs intended American (sic) to be a Christian nation and that they embraced 21st century evangelical Christianity.”
Cheers, Qadgop. Terrible verse, that. Awful poets of America, if you’re going to write rhyming doggerel, at least make sure the rhymes are actual rhymes, and that it scans.
I guess they’re not trying to say that the holiday is being stolen from Jesus, ala Christmas / Easter. All the same, it’s highly inappropriate for a secular holiday.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I’m going to go spray mace in my eyes to get rid of that nasty poem…
Can you give a cite (or cites) with a description of 18th century concepts of Jesus? Could you at least define exactly what you mean by a “personal savior,” and preferably show how this concept was incompatible with 18th century worship? I’m an atheist, but I agree with JThunder on this. You’re asserting something here for which you are not providing evidence.
Well, I don’t know what (if any) political beliefs that poem is supposed to promote. Maybe none, but the Orthodox Presbyterian Church is one of the small Presbyterian splinter denominations which is the occasional haunt of Christian Reconstructionists, so I wouldn’t be utterly shocked if it isn’t making some sort of Dominionist “Christian Nation” claim.
Anyhow, I wrote an essay some years back which pretty directly addresses the question contained in the title of the thread, so what the hell: The Unchristian Roots of the Fourth of July.
