Founding Fathers: Religious or Not?

[MobBoss]

Treaty of Tripoli, 1796-97



The founding fathers were still very much around. The treaty was passed unanimously by congress. Pretty much says it all.


There is plenty more. Franklin and Jefferson were actively and vocally anti-Christian. Others as well. Why do modern Christians lie about this?

There were a couple of different versions of this treaty because of the translation problems. Guess what? Not all the versions said this. Much has been said out of this being a simple concession to the muslims who wouldnt deal with us otherwise.

So which was the real version?

Plus, the treaty was broken and rendered moot not long after it was passed. Its hasnt been binding upon the USA for a very, very, long time.

As to Jefferson....he was pro-christ as he found the values and teachings of Jesus to be held in high regard. This is more than evident on his writings on Christ. He simply held a huge dislike for the organized church.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

A majority were committed Christians, from a variety of denominations. To the best of my Knowledge, only Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were Deists (though there may have been a few more), and none were really atheists. Deism was despised by most Americans of the times, so many of the leaders may have pretended to be a lot more religious than they really were (as is still pretty common), but many of them were clearly devout.

As a child, Franklin idolized the christian leader Cotton Mather, but as a teen he moved further and further from religion. In his early twenties, he was very close to being an Atheist, however from then on he moved closer and closer to orthodox Christianity. He was never really a Christian, but he considered Christianity to be extremely beneficial to society and donated lots of money to evangelism. It was also his idea to open the constitutional convention with prayer.

Jefferson was certainly considered a heretic, and was accused of atheism. At least once he publicly called himself a Christian, but he also denied that Christ was divine, and even published a "bible" in which he edited out miracles of all sorts in order to focus on moral teachings. (I'm thinking his views were not all that different from Tolstoy's.) He refused to be associated with any organized religion, but said he was a devoted member of a sect with only one member. I'm of the opinion that the "wall of separation of church and state" was an attempt to counter his opponents claim that he would use the presidency to enforce atheism on the nation, allowing only his version of the bible, etc.

 

[scy12]

Jefferson was certainly considered a heretic, and was accused of atheism. At least once he publicly called himself a Christian, but he also denied that Christ was divine, and even published a "bible" in which he edited out miracles of all sorts in order to focus on moral teachings. He refused to be associated with any organized religion, but said he was a devoted member of a sect with only one member. I'm of the opinion that the "wall of separation of church and state" was an attempt to counter his opponents claim that he would use the presidency to enforce atheism on the nation, allowing only his version of the bible, etc.

it seems the society they lived was not as tolerant to atheism as our society today. (Which is to a big extend still intolerant to it).

 

[MobBoss]

it seems the society they lived was not as tolerant to atheism as our society today. (Which is to a big extend still intolerant to it).

At the time, atheism was a budding issue in Europe...not the USA. Again, even our deists were dismissive of atheist ideals.

 

[.Shane.]

TBH, the whole questions is not practical. In that it when people ask this question they are asking the question of 18th century intellects based on a 21st century viewpoint of what "religious" means.

Its totally obvious that America in 1780 was a "Christian" population. But it was a much more narrowly defined Christianity. It cast a suspicious eye, at the least, at Catholics. In the Puritanically NE it was founded on a tradition of intolerance to the non-elect. You most certainly would've seen no tolerance for Muslims or Hindus.

And, in terms of practice of the FF's, for example, they ranged from the very pious to the irreligious to the diestic to the scandalous.

The real point of the question is to use the FF's to fight the modern culture wars. Which is unfortunate and does a disservice to history, society, and politics.

 

[Mark1031]

The real point of the question is to use the FF's to fight the modern culture wars. Which is unfortunate and does a disservice to history, society, and politics.

bingo......

 

[Bill3000]

At the time, atheism was a budding issue in Europe...not the USA. Again, even our deists were dismissive of atheist ideals.

Atheism wasn't "budding" at the time, period. There was anti-clericalism, yes, but not atheism. Even during the french revolution, the radicals stuck to worshiping Reason as God, rather than declare themselves atheists. It wasn't until the mid-to-late 19th century when you got full out declarations of atheism, when it was a less dangerous declaration. The idea that someone could be an theoretical, as opposed to a practical atheist, was thought to be impossible at the time.

As to Jefferson....he was pro-christ as he found the values and teachings of Jesus to be held in high regard. This is more than evident on his writings on Christ. He simply held a huge dislike for the organized church.

Well, to be honest, that's not really any different than most atheists who come from Christian backgrounds. But that's not really "pro-christ" any more than Gandhi was "pro-christ".

FYI, "The Creator" is deist terminology.

Atheism makes sense at all times in all universes where there is no god.

No, the major arguments for atheism were not put forth until the 19th century. Until then the idea that there was a God was considered to be self-evident.

Anyway, I'm going to have to agree that you can't simply say that they were "religious" or "not religious" because they had a very diverse ideological background, so that calling them "religious" or not is sorta pointless. I would bet, however, that if atheism was a philosophically valid position at the time and it wasn't a dangerous position to hold, that there would have been some founding fathers who would be atheists, but that's still nothing to generalize upon.

 

[Cutlass]

Most of them were very much religious. But they had a certain pragmatism about the subject as well because religious persecution between Christians was a real threat in their lives and they were determined to put an end to that.

 

[Berzerker]

it seems the society they lived was not as tolerant to atheism as our society today. (Which is to a big extend still intolerant to it).

Perhaps, but we dont see no atheists running for prez nowadays

 

[Berzerker]

So which was the real version?

What did they do? Write up a 2nd treaty for the folks back home who might not like that bit about us not being a Christian nation?

Plus, the treaty was broken and rendered moot not long after it was passed. Its hasnt been binding upon the USA for a very, very, long time.

Its a statement of 'fact' that appears in a treaty, it was never binding. We weren't promising to stay non-Christian or converting to and enforcing a state religion.

As to Jefferson....he was pro-christ

Not all that son of god stuff that would seem to differentiate Christians from non-Christians. Not many people will line up as anti-Christ

 

[Gooblah]

Dude. They lived in 18th century America. Of course they were religious..not even that, super-religious!

The only reason the freedom of religion is there in the Constitution is because they didn't want institutionalized discrimination between different Christian denominations (except those goddamn Catholics! ).

 

[Perfection]

Some were some weren't, the point is they made a nation where it's okay to be either.

 

[Berzerker]

The only reason the freedom of religion is there in the Constitution is because they didn't want institutionalized discrimination between different Christian denominations (except those goddamn Catholics! ).

That was their context, most everyone belonged to one or another Christian denomination with a history of violence within the religion going back centuries, but that aint the language they used in the 1st Amendment. They were thinking big picture, not the squabbling that goes on between sects in the same religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

That is about all religion, not sectarian competitions.

 

[Gooblah]

That was their context, most everyone belonged to one or another Christian denomination with a history of violence within the religion going back centuries, but that aint the language they used in the 1st Amendment. They were thinking big picture, not the squabbling that goes on between sects in the same religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

That is about all religion, not sectarian competitions.

I dunno. These guys were only exposed to Christians and native heathens. Muslims in Spain were gone, the Jews driven out. The only persecution they faced was from other Christians. I still think it was a measure to ensure some level of unity in the new nation, but I would love to believe it was a true gesture of humanity...

 

[FredLC]

I honestly fail to see why USians praise so much the opinions of the founding fathers. The very reason why they were brilliant is that they enacted a system which is principally defined by distancing itself from personal and grupal agendas, and try to objectively be fair to whatever a person may think.

Worshiping them in a cult of personality is, really, missing the point as badly as it could be missed!

Regards .

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Some were some weren't, the point is they made a nation where it's okay to be either.

That is very, very true.

The very reason why they were brilliant is that they enacted a system which is principally defined by distancing itself from personal and grupal agendas, and try to objectively be fair to whatever a person may think.

So is that. What made them great is that they came up with a system that can be run by imperfect leaders.