"Formo" wrote:

But are they truly "Christian" principles?

What about that bit about giving to Caesar what is Caesar and to God what is God's?

Now God may well ordain US-style federalism and separation powers as his ideal form of government. I have no clue what God ordains.

But I do think God would have trouble with even Washington and Madison, or Luther and Calvin, much less Pat Robertson, D James Kennedy, ordaining their constitutional vision as His.

Do I think the founders thought they were doing God's will? Yes, and I'd quote the Declaration just as you have for that proposition.

Do I personally think much of the American system is consistent with "Christian principles" in a way that the alternatives are not? Yes, again.

Do I think that said consistency is one of the big reasons I consider the Madison/Jefferson/Washington vision the best system of governance ever put into practice, perhaps the biggest reason? Yes, a third time.

But I also think that when we argue about how "Christian" the basis for the original vision was or was not, we miss Christ's main point. His desire for us is not to come up with the best government system in this world. His desire for us is even less for us to choose our government because of whether our forefathers, who we admire, believed in him or not.

His desire for us is to cast off our need for governments and other non-divine institutions, to trust in him first, last, and always. His desire is to listen to Him and listen for his guidance. We should not base our decisions or beliefs about proper government on "our" principles, but on His.

The question isn't whether American government should be based on "Christian" principles. It's whether it should be based on Christ's principles.

These are *not* the same thing.

"Wade" wrote:

. . . as it [the government of the United States] has in itself no character or enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] -- and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. -- A Memorial and Remonstrance, 1785.

"James Madison" wrote:

History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. -- From a letter to Baron von Humboldt, 1813.

"Thomas Jefferson" wrote:

I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced! -- From a letter to Thomas Jefferson.

"John Adams" wrote:

For example, Thomas Jefferson straight up said that he took what Jesus said from the Bible and threw out the rest as the rest was garbage. .

"zombieslayer" wrote:

Sorry Christians, but our Founding Fathers were not Christian, they were Deist. HUGE difference. If you knew some of the things our Founding Fathers said about religion, you'd be offended. For example, Thomas Jefferson straight up said that he took what Jesus said from the Bible and threw out the rest as the rest was garbage. That's straight from Thomas Jefferson, and no, don't ask me to find the quotes as I went through his letters back when I was in college before some of you were born. I remember them because I wrote a 25 page research paper on Jefferson (no exaggeration of the length).

Non is correct about "the Creator." It's a generic phrase and has as much to do with Christianity as it does with Native American beliefs. If I remember correctly, Ben Franklin was fascinated by Native American beliefs and a lot of today's Christians would take insult by the things he said.

I'm not going to state my personal religion. It's private. However, I believe history should be studied as is, not changed as to not offend people's delicate sensibilities.

Political correctness from ANY direction is wrong, and unfortunately, too many people when studying history want to see it with their side as right instead of what really happened.

"zombieslayer" wrote:

In his so-called Jefferson Bible (entitled, The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth), Thomas Jefferson didn't only throw out most of the New Testament narration -- he threw out anything he believed was falsely attributed to Jesus, keeping only those sayings he believed were authentically from Jesus. Jefferson's true intent with this book was to expurgate the New Testament of all supernatural references -- in particular, to eliminate references to Jesus' divinity. Jefferson sought to portray Jesus as nothing more than a wise moralist, a good teller of stories. Splicing together verses from the various gospels in chronological order, he recreates the story of Jesus' life as a human. Gone are the virgin birth, angels, prophecy, and Jesus' geneology, and certainly all miracles. What remains is a genteel collection of wise and moral aphorisms.

"Nonstopdrivel" wrote: