What is Liberation Theology? Barack Obama

Question: "What is Liberation Theology?"

Answer: Simply put, Liberation Theology is an attempt to interpret Scripture through the plight of the poor. It is largely a humanistic doctrine. It started in South America in the turbulent 1950's when Marxism was making great gains among the poor because of its emphasis on the redistribution of wealth, allowing poor peasants to share in the wealth of the colonial elite and thus upgrade their economic status in life. As a theology, it has very strong Roman Catholic roots.

Liberation Theology was bolstered in 1968 at the Second Latin American Bishops Conference which met in Medellin, Colombia. The idea was to study the Bible and to fight for social justice in Christian (Catholic) communities. Since the only governmental model for the redistribution of the wealth in a South American country was a Marxist model (gained in the turbulent 1950's), the redistribution of wealth to raise the economic standards of the poor in South America took on a definite Marxist flavor. Since those who had money were very reluctant to part with it in any wealth redistribution model, the use of a populist (read poor) revolt was encouraged by those who worked most closely with the poor. As a result, the Liberation Theology model was mired in Marxist dogma and revolutionary causes.

As a result of its Marxist leanings, by the 1980's the Catholic hierarchy, from Pope John Paul on down, had criticized liberation theology as practiced by the bishops and priests of South America. As a result, they have been accused of supporting violent revolutions and outright Marxist class struggle by the top hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This perversion usually is the result of a humanist view of man being codified into Church Doctrine by zealous priests and bishops and explains why the Catholic top hierarchy now want to separate themselves from a Marxist doctrine and revolution.

However, Liberation Theology has moved from the poor peasants in South America to the poor blacks in America. We now have Black Liberation Theology being preached in the black community. It is the same Marxist, revolutionary, humanistic philosophy found in South American Liberation Theology and has no more claim for a scriptural basis than the South American model has. False doctrine is still false, no matter how it is dressed up or what fancy name is attached to it. In the same way that revolutionary fervor was stirred up in South America, Liberation Theology is now trying to stir up revolutionary fervor among Blacks in America. If the church in America recognizes the falseness of Black Liberation Theology as the Catholic Church did in the South American model, Black Liberation Theology will suffer the same fate that the South America Liberation Theology did, namely it will be seen to be the false doctrine of a humanist viewpoint dressed up in theological terms.
http://www.gotquestions.org/liberation-theology.html

OTHER SOURCES...

An Investigation of Black Liberation Theology
http://www.hwhouse.com/aninvestigation.htm

Looking at Obama and black liberation theology

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/jon/080219

The March to Communism

The March to Communism

February 13, 2008 - 14:20 ET

We are on a collision course with socialism/communism here in the United States. With McCain being the GOP nominee, Clinton or Obama will be the favorite in the general election. It’s not just a fear slogan to say ‘democrats are communist’ – just take a look at their own words AND policies and decide for yourself.

$1.5 trillion

Number of dollars over the years, state and local governments have promised, but not paid for in retiree health care and other non-pension post-employment benefits.

Feds up to their ears

The federal government is in no position to bail out these states and local governments because their unfunded future liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as is widely reported is an estimated $50 TRILLION.

But even that isn’t the FULL story because that $50 TRILLION dollars only projects unfunded liabilities for the next 75 years—unless the government knows something we don’t—a lot of people are still going to be around after 75 years--if you project the unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid over the infinite horizon MEDICARE’S UNFUNDED liabilities shoot from $33.9 TRILLION to a present-value unfunded obligation of $74.3 TRILLION—and that’s just MEDICARE!

Democrats (and some R’s) Solution? Spend!

Spend more, lots more! Hillarycare Part II would cost and estimated $110 BILLION a year with Obama’s plan coming in at $60 BILLION annually.

2008 proposed federal budget allocations:

To get an idea just how much the 08 crop wants to spend, here’s what some existing programs already cost.

United States Secret Service 1.4 Billion

Customs and Border Protection 8.8 Billion

Immigration and Customs Enforcement 4.8 Billion

United States Coast Guard 7.3 Billion

The ENTIRE Department of Homeland Security proposed budget for 2008 comes in at $43 BILLION (less than either Hillary’s or Obama’s health care proposal).

Clinton’s other campaign promises:

$$

Spend $1 Billion For The Development Of Affordable Housing Through Housing Trust Funds. “In order to encourage the development of affordable housing, Sen. Clinton will establish a $1 billion fund to support state, county, and municipal housing trust funds

$

Sen. Clinton Has Introduced Legislation And Campaigned To Create A U.S. Public Service Academy, At A Cost Of Approximately $200 Million Annually; Multiplied By 4 Years = $800 Million.

$$$$

Sen. Clinton Has Proposed 401(k) For All Americans, Funded In Part By The Government At A Cost Of Up To $25 Billion Per Year, Multiplied By 4 Years = $100 Billion

$$$

Sen. Clinton’s Baby Bond Proposal would give $5,000 to each of the 4 million babies born in the U.S. each year, totaling $20 billion per year, multiplied by 4 years = $80 billion.

$$$$

Clinton wants to create a $50 billion "strategic energy fund" to develop new sources of fuel and has proposed paying for it by eliminating tax subsidies for oil companies. Edwards has outlined a similar program and would eliminate the oil company subsidies as well as establish a cap-and-trade system requiring companies to pay for emitting pollution.

Obama’s other promises

?

Credit Card Consumers’ Bill of Rights—“stop credit card companies from exploiting consumers with unfair practices…”

$

Credit Card 5 Star Rating System—similar to the Department of Homeland Security’s Color coded threat assessment rating system; Obama, if elected will implement a 5 star rating system for credit cards “which will assess the degree to which credit cards meet consumer-friendly standards…” Senator Obama previously introduced such a bill and put the price tag at $10 MILLION annually

$$$

Foreclosure Prevention Fund. In over your head; bought a home too big for your budget? No problem—Senator Obama is proposing a fund to “assist individuals who purchased homes that are simply too expensive for their income levels…”; estimated FIRST year cost? $10 BILLION.

$$$$

Proposal to create 5-E Youth Services Corps (the 5 “E”’s stand for energy, efficiency, environmental education, and employment) as well as a Green Job Corps to engage disconnected and disadvantaged youth in the all things Green.

$$

Supports requiring employers to give all employees 5 days of paid sick leave

$$$

Supports “encouraging the diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation’s spectrum.” Can you say FAIRNESS DOCTRINE or perhaps public funding for Air America?

Totals

$286.999 BILLION

Projected annual spending for Obama’s proposals

$218 BILLION

Projected annual spending for Clinton’s proposals

$7 BILLION

Projected annual spending for McCain’s proposals

$54 BILLION

Projected annual spending for Huckabee’s proposals

$150 BILLION (in savings)

Projected savings after Ron Paul eliminates most of the Government.

What this spending does

1. Push us deeper and further into debt at a time when we absolutely can’t afford it;

2. Reflect a particular paternalistic approach to governing—a true NANY STATE

3. Each proposal increases the absolute RAW power of government

March into Socialism/Communism

Other socialist countries (even Russia in some ways) are decentralizing their form of national healthcare---Obama and Clinton seek to increase government’s role in our medical care and treatment decisions and options; worse yet they plan on burying us in debt in order to do it;

Socialist, communist and totalitarian regimes have always focused on harnessing the youth into national organizations. Within these organizations, ideological conformity can be imposed, future leaders can be groomed and political paybacks can be awarded to those who have donated generously in time or money to a particular candidate.

We had over 60 MILLION Americans volunteer their time last year—most likely without any government incentive for doing so. Do we really need the government sponsoring ideologically based charitable groups like Senator Clinton’s US Public Service Academy or Obama’s 5-E Youth Services Green Army?

Glenn sums it up this way:

‘If you go back and you read history from just before Wilson all the way through FDR, what they were trying to do with these Progressives, which Hillary Clinton claims she is, an early 20th century Progressive. Go back and read about these people. They are telling you who they are, and Americans just won't do the homework. They don't believe in local level. This is the opposite of what our founding fathers set up. These people, all believers in Marxism. They all believed that the Soviet Union would succeed and so what they did was they were looking for something to unite nationally and Mussolini -- you have to put this into perspective. Mussolini was not hated for much of his term. In fact, he was idealized by the left here in America. They thought fascism, before it became about extermination of entire people, they thought, this is a good thing; we could just get the Government to tell people what's good, what's right. That's why the Progressives in the early 20th century brought you prohibition! It wasn't good for you to drink. It wasn't good for society to have alcohol available. And if you didn't agree with them, you were either in on it with big alcohol or you were too stupid and you needed to be retrained. And so they were looking for things that would unite the country but not war and so FDR, one of the projects he started was the Conservation Corps to help the environment, to save our forests. Does any of this sound familiar? Does anybody think that maybe possibly that's the real story behind going green, the environmental movement that now cannot be dissevered from global warming? Starting projects, little armies of the youth! Put them into a mindset that is one with the government, one with the environment, one with the Earth.

Depressing Summary

We hope you think socialism/communism is neat---because we are going to be waist deep in it about 36 months from now!
Glenn Beck.com

MORALITY & ATHEISM

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/09-18-07.asp

Atheism cannot account for morality.

I did not accuse him of being immoral, but I did accuse him of borrowing his choice of moral living from the Christian worldview, the very worldview he denounces.

Like so many atheists, is an “interloper on God’s territory. Everything they use to construct his system has been stolen from God’s ‘construction site.’ The unbeliever is like the little girl who must climb on her father’s lap to slap his face. . . . [T]he unbeliever must use the world as it has been created by God to try to throw God off His throne

Incredibly, Harris seems to be oblivious to the fact that atheists—which he considers himself to be—have perpetrated far more evil and suffering in this world than hypocritical “Christians” ever have.
================================
Morality’s Reality

http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/moralitys-reality-atheists-generally.html
Atheists generally claim that morality is either derived form nature or is a human invention. This may be better stated as a human concept derived from nature through evolution. Deriving one’s morality from nature is a very dangerous thing to do. This natural morality would teach us that we are to fight our way to the top of the pack by tooth and nail (as some people do). We may even eliminate anyone who gets in our way. We would also murder other people and take what they have. Cannibalism and infanticide would be perfectly acceptable. Of course, cannibalism and infanticide is perfectly acceptable to some people.

Atheists besmirch Christianity for the dark episodes of its past, and rightly so. However, they must borrow Judeo-Christian morals in order to do so. Atheists generally believe that morals are completely situational, individually decided, or decided upon by a general consensus.

Some atheists argue that if morality is absolute why is it that all people do not follow the same morals. In fact, why is it even that not all Christians follow the same morals. These facts only prove that it is a personal free choice that determines whether people will follow the moral law. These facts do not prove that there is no moral law. It is illegal to drive through a red light (with the exception of emergency personnel) but people still run red lights. Does that mean that it is not illegal to run red lights? No, it merely means that people purposefully choose to break the law.

Moreover, does it really stand to reason that naturally occurring morals (or are they instincts?) would be to not steal, murder, lie, etc.? How would such actions give us an evolutionary edge? I could certainly succeed more in life if I simply stole whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted, from whomever I wanted. I could lie to people in order to deceive them for my own personal gain. I could simply eliminate my competition—in procreation, in business, etc.
http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/moralitys-reality-atheists-generally.html

Succinct Statements On Atheism
There are various sects within atheism. Generally speaking, atheism is a faith based belief system that holds to the belief that God does not exist.
http://lifeanddoctrineatheism.blogspot.com/2007/02/succinct-statements-on-atheism-there.html

In philosophy, materialism is that form of physicalism which holds that the only thing that can truly be said to exist is matter; that fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena are the result of material interactions; that matter is the only substance. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materialism

Atheism’s Faith Based
Dogmatic Beliefs

There is no authority higher than the individual; the individual is qualified to judge all things by his own wit.

There are no absolutes, except the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth, no God, no supernatural, etc., etc.

Morals are relative or situational, except that which the individual atheist has concocted as a moral standard (since atheism is amoral they must borrow moral concepts from theistic worldviews).

http://www.squidoo.com/atheismsuccinctly

===============================
Your code is just Judeo-Christianity without the God

Hey Atheists … Get Your Own Moral Code.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2007/05/26/hey_atheists_%E2%80%A6_get_your_own_moral_code

The problem I have, however, with the atheists and their goodness and their morality claims is that all your ethical codes of conduct sound strangely similar to the principles inherent to the Judeo-Christian traditions. As a matter of fact, it seems as if you have bellied up to the Bible and are treating it like a buffet . . . passing up on the worship of the person and work of God, while taking second helpings of His moral principles, you duplicitous, little, evolved monkey, you.

One of my old seminary profs used to say that although such muddled atheists would never verbally affirm the existence of God, they would live according to some ethical standard, some moral capital they have milked from us theists.

If I were an atheist and I believed that God didn’t exist, that the Bible was a bunch of weird bunk written by religiously deluded men several thousand years ago, that Jesus was an apocalyptic, sandal-wearing, hippie forerunner of David Koresh who went around spitting out cheeky clichés who needed not to be heeded, but straight-jacketed or at least ignored—I sure as heck wouldn’t be borrowing any tidbits of His wisdom to navigate my life’s glide path.

That’s what I appreciate about the atheist and philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Freddy is one of the few atheists who told his fellow atheistic buddies that they couldn’t have their cake and eat it, too. Nietzsche understood that we can either have God and meaningful morality, or we can have no God and thus, all life is meaningless and without any trace of hope . . . it officially sucks.


Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif., speaks during a Capitol Hill news conference in this March 4, 2003, file photo. Secular groups applauded Rep. Pete Stark for publicly acknowledging he does not believe in a supreme being. The declaration, they said, makes the California Democrat the highest-ranking elected official _ and first congressman _ to publicly claim to be an atheist. The American Humanist Association took out an ad in the Washington Post on Tuesday, March 13, 2007, congratulating Stark's stance. (AP Photo/Terry Ashe, file)

Nietzsche came to the conclusion that if there is no God—or God is dead, as he put it—then he’s not going to live “as if” God is alive and His moral principles mattered. Yes,

claiming the title while schlepping to Judeo-Christian principles.brass-balled Friedrich said that the opposite of how the Bible says to live is the way we should live.

Once again, if I did not believe in God and I believed that the 10 commandments were BS and that faith, hope and love is for “the herd”, and that I came from nothing and I’m going to nothing and there is no ultimate eternal accountability for my actions—then I am sure not going to live like I did. Why do you do so, Mr. & Mrs. Atheist?

So what’s it going to be, my obstreperous amigos? Are you going to continue to blather on about there being no God and then live like there is one and that His word and will matters? Get consistent, why don’t ‘cha? Don’t live by the Ten Commandments. Don’t live by the Golden Rule. Don’t do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That’s our stuff. That’s the Judeo-Christian way. Get your own commandments that are logically deduced from the “no God” hypothesis, write your own unholy book and form your own civilization. Then let’s see how appealing it is, how it betters the planet and how far you’ll get.

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/06-18-07.asp
The Atheist Bible of Quotations

http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/05-07-07.asp
The Atheist Debate
====================================
Founding Believers:
Examining the Faiths of the Founding Fathers

What were the religious beliefs of the founding fathers? Although it might appear to be an issue of only minor historical curiosity, that question is at the heart of many of the most contentious debates in the blogosphere. Countless arguments are centered on claims that the founders were either God-fearing Christians or Deistically-inclined secularists. But while historical documents are often mined for justifying quotes, few people bother to muster historical evidence to shore up their claims.

In his new book, The Faiths of the Founding Fathers, historian David Holmes fills that void by providing a useful methodology for examining the relevant evidence. Holmes outlines four areas that can help us laymen determine whether the founding father was a Deist, an orthodox Christian, or somewhere in between:


1. Examine the actions of the founding father in the area of religion (e.g., Did they attend church regularly?).

2. Examine the participation of the founding father in a church’s ordinances or sacraments (e.g., Did they have their children baptized? Did they take Holy Communion?).

3. Comparison of inactivity versus activity in regards to religious involvement.

4. Examine the religious language used by the founding father.

Using these criteria, Holmes claims that the religious beliefs of the founding fathers can be broadly classified as:

Non-Christian Deists: Deists who rejected all sacraments and rarely attended church services.

Deistic Christians/Unitarians: Held Deistic beliefs, attended church regularly, but rejected the Lord’s Supper and confirmation.

Orthodox Christians: Accepted orthodox Christian beliefs, attended church regularly, participated in the sacraments and ordinances.

Let us apply the four areas to the pre-eminent founding father, George Washington:

1. Although he was raised in the Anglican Church, Washington was never confirmed.

2. Washington appears to have consistently refused to take Holy Communion, the principle means by which, as Holmes notes, “Anglicans displayed a commitment to Jesus Christ.”

3. Washington was active in the Episcopal Church, serving as both a vestryman and churchwarden. He attended services with some regularity (about once a month).

4. Washington consistently used Deistic language in reference to God. Although he often used such terms as “the Deity” and “the Supreme Being”, in his correspondence he only uses the name “Jesus Christ” once (in a letter to an Indian tribe).

A careful examination of the evidence would lead to the conclusion that Washington was, using Holmes taxonomy, a “Deistic Christian.”

Applied to other founding fathers, the list could be roughly delineated as:

Non-Christian Deists: Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen

Deistic Christians/Unitarians: Ben Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe

Orthodox Christians: Patrick Henry, Samuel Adams, John Jay, Elias Boudinot, John Witherspoon

With the exception of the handful of orthodox Christians, the majority of the founding fathers subscribed to a religious view that we would nowadays classify as Unitarianism. A rejection of Trinitarianism clearly puts one outside the bounds of orthodox Christianity. We should not, therefore, claim that a historical figure is a “Christian” when we would consider someone who held those beliefs today to be a heretic. The leaders during the revolutionary era may have subscribed to a Judeo-Christian view of morality, but few of them were orthodox believers.

While we Christians can claim few founding fathers as fellow believers, the atheistic secularist can claim none. Not one of the significant leaders was an atheist, much less subscribed to the modern idea of secularism. Most appear to have been held to the classic “five points of Deism”:

1. There is a God.
2. He ought to be worshiped.
3. Virtue is the principle element in this worship.
4. Humans should repent of their sins.
5. There is life after death, where the evil will be punished and the good rewarded.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/003358.html
=====================================
My post, not used.
<>So, over 200 years ago some of the founders were deists and some were not.<>
And yes it makes a difference in how we understand what motivated, influenced and helped shape this country. As I said, atheists can not afford to give any credence to Christianity, it would not be good for their agenda. See post 307.

Ahhh Thomas Jefferson! The patron saint of secularists and atheists.

The anti-religion crowd act as if he "alone" authored the Constitution and no other delegate had any imput or influence in the makeing of the document.

Even Thomas Jefferson who was certainly not a trinitrainn, or a believing orthydox Christian beleived that man and the state were not to be the finial abortors for securing out rights . With the influence of Christian doctrine Jefferson posessed a Chirstian worldview that by passed fallen, flawed man/state, and appealed to a higher power for securing our rights. The belief in God helped give us all the Bill
==================================
The "religious right" certainly inspires a lot of repugnance, but I don't think it's their general religious views (of the kind you discuss above) that is the reason. Rather, it's the hostility they express through those views, and their insistence that everyone else has to live by their (rather extremist) beliefs, that angers people.

With such a confident and sweeping statement you no doubt have dozens of solid, convincing examples of how this is true... right?

The point most conservative Christians have regarding the founding fathers is that they all held a philosophy and worldview that was strongly, powerfully founded on and informed by Judeo-Christian theism, which is in great opposition to most modern thinkers.
========================================
Christian Reconstruction
http://forerunner.com/forerunner/X0496.html

CHRISTIANITY'S REAL RECORD

Christianity's Real Record
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6657

http://aquinasdad.blogspot.com/
http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html

What About Atrocities That Have Been Done in the Name of Religion?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

Darwin Won't Do
http://www.americanvision.org/articlearchive2007/09-26-07.asp

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=127049
http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com/2007/06/infallibility-and-history-of-church.html
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/the_hollow_men_hitchens_dawkins_and_harris/
http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2006/11/23/atheism-kills/
http://www.inplainsite.org/html/atheism_or_christianity.html
http://thinkers.net/talk/messages/9/15.html
http://steigerblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/evil-bloody-religion_20.html
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/331-history-of-neopaganism
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2006/03/mohammed_in_the.html
http://culturalapologetics.blogspot.com/2005/04/hotel-rwanda-relativism-moral-anarchy.html
http://www.preachersjourney.blogspot.com/

http://www.twoorthree.net/2006/11/atheist_atrocit.html

http://www.evangelicalresources.org/wicca.shtml#articles

http://str.typepad.com/weblog/apologetics/index.html

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/ff/chap01.html

How to Shut Up an Atheist if You Must
http://capoliticalnews.com/s/spip.php?article370

http://www.christianciv.com/ChristCivEssay.htm

http://www.homeeducator.com/FamilyTimes/articles/11-3article7.htm
http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html

http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2005_06.html

http://www.tektonics.org/nutshell/nutshellhub.html

http://churchvstate.blogspot.com/2007/10/our-founders-were-they-christian.html

STATE CONSTITUTIONS
http://www.1776faith.com/constitutions.html
http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/stand_reason.htm
http://toulonbaptist.com/foundingfathers.htm
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5193
http://www.naacd.com/issues_founding_fathers.htm
http://www.usiap.org/Legacy/Quotes/ThomasJefferson.html
http://jcsm.org/AmericasFounders/

Whose belief system?
http://www.wnd.com/news/printer-friendly.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34243
===========================================


The Constitutional Convention

It's not necessary to dig through the diaries, however, to determine which faith was the Founder's guiding light. There's an easier way to settle the issue.

The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith.[1]

This is a revealing tally. It shows that the members of the Constitutional Convention, the most influential group of men shaping the political foundations of our nation, were almost all Christians, 51 of 55--a full 93%. Indeed, 70% were Calvinists (the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the Dutch Reformed), considered by some to be the most extreme and dogmatic form of Christianity.

Who Were the Founding Fathers?

Historical proof-texts can be raised on both sides. Certainly there were godless men among the early leadership of our nation, though some of those cited as examples of Founding Fathers turn out to be insignificant players. For example, Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen may have been hostile to evangelical Christianity, but they were firebrands of the Revolution, not intellectual architects of the Constitution. Paine didn't arrive in this country until 1774 and only stayed a short time.

As for others--George Washington, Samuel Adams, James Madison, John Witherspoon, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, John Adams, Patrick Henry, and even Thomas Jefferson--their personal correspondence, biographies, and public statements are replete with quotations showing that these thinkers had political philosophies deeply influenced by Christianity.

Thomas Jefferson

Though deeply committed to a belief in natural rights, including the self-evident truth that all men are created equal, Jefferson was individualistic when it came to religion; he sifted through the New Testament to find the facts that pleased him.

Sometimes he sounded like a staunch churchman. The Declaration of Independence contains at least four references to God. In his Second Inaugural Address he asked for prayers to Israel's God on his behalf. Other times Jefferson seemed to go out of his way to be irreverent and disrespectful of organized Christianity, especially Calvinism.

It's clear that Thomas Jefferson was no evangelical, but neither was he an Enlightenment deist. He was more Unitarian than either deist or Christian.[3]

This analysis, though, misses the point. The most important factor regarding the faith of Thomas Jefferson--or any of our Founding Fathers--isn't whether or not he had a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. The debate over the religious heritage of this country is not about who is ultimately going to heaven, but rather about what the dominant convictions were that dictated the structure of this nation.

Even today there are legions of born-again Christians who have absolutely no skill at integrating their beliefs about Christ with the details of their daily life, especially their views of government. They may be "saved," but they are completely ineffectual as salt and light.

By contrast, some of the Fathers may not have been believers in the narrowest sense of the term, yet in the broader sense--the sense that influences culture--their thinking was thoroughly Christian. Unlike many evangelicals who live lives of practical atheism, these men had political ideals that were deeply informed by a robust Christian world view. They didn't always believe biblically, having a faith leading to salvation, but almost all thought biblically, resulting in a particular type of government.

Thomas Jefferson was this kind of man. In Defending the Declaration, legal historian Gary Amos observes, "Jefferson is a notable example of how a man can be influenced by biblical ideas and Christian principles even though he never confessed Jesus Christ as Lord in the evangelical sense.

Treaty of Tripoli

ENLIGHTENMENT LITE

Allen is correct that there were a number of Enlightenment principles floating around the colonies in the late eighteenth century as well as anti-clericalism. And there is no doubt that some of these principles made their way into the Constitution, although it’s hard to tell where when compared to the obvious Enlightenment principles inherent in the French Declara­tion of the Rights of Man (1789). But we should be reminded of Allen’s absolutist claim of a complete dissolution of religion from political consid­erations in the Constitution. She has set the evaluative standard. If she is correct, then why didn’t the framers presage the French revolutionaries by starting the national calendar with a new Year One? Why did the Con­stitutional framers set aside Sunday—the Fourth Commandment of the Decalogue—as a day of rest for the President (Art. 1, sec. 7) if it was their desire to secularize the nation as Allen suggests? The French revolutionar­ies reconstructed the seven-day biblical week and turned it into a ten-day metric week in hopes of ridding the nation of every vestige of Christianity. Nothing like this was done in America.

STATE CONSTITUTIONS

Then there’s the issue of the state constitutions. One of the reasons some give for the absence of a more explicit declaration of God in the Constitution was the fact that the state constitutions made numerous references to God. The issue of religion was the domain of the states. Since the Federal Constitution was a document of enumerated powers, to men­tion religion in a more specific way would have given the national govern­ment jurisdiction over religious issues. The framers believed that such issues were best left to the states. Constitutional scholar and First Amend­ment specialist, Daniel Dreisbach, writes:
The U. S. Constitution’s lack of a Christian designation had little to do with a radical secular agenda. Indeed, it had little to do with religion at all. The Constitution was silent on the sub­ject of God and religion because there was a consensus that, despite the framer’s personal beliefs, religion was a matter best left to the individual citizens and their respective state gov­ernments (and most states in the founding era retained some form of religious establishment). The Constitution, in short, can be fairly characterized as “godless” or secular only insofar as it deferred to the states on all matters regarding religion and devotion to God.3

Keep in mind that the national Constitution did not nullify the re­ligious pronouncements of the state constitutions, and neither did it separate religion from civil government. The First Amendment is a direct prohibition on Congress, not the states, to stay out of religious issues: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is a good indica­tion that the states were to be unmolested on their religious requirements. As I’ve noted elsewhere,4 even today every state constitution makes reference to God. Here’s a sample of some of the state constitutions and their religious lan­guage during the time the Constitution was drafted:

If, as Allen maintains, “God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent,” how does she explain these state constitutional provisions? If the federal Constitution nullified these state constitutional mandates, then her point would be valid. The point is, God was a major player in the founding of America for more than 50 years before the Constitution was drafted.

http://www.1776faith.com/constitutions.html

NOT A MORAL TREATISE

The Constitutions says nothing about morality or values. There are no prohibitions against murder, theft, or rape. The word “law” is used numer­ous times, but it is never defined. The author of an 1838 tract entitled, An Inquiry into the Moral and religious Character of the American Govern­ment, makes an important observation: “The object of the Constitution [is to] distribute power, not favour; to frame a government, and not to fore­stall and clog the administration of it by words of preconceived partiality for this or that possible subject of its future action.”7 This is especially true when religion was an issue reserved to the states. States wrote educa­tional provisions into their constitutions, while the Federal Constitution remained silent on the subject. The 1876 constitution of North Carolina includes 15 sections on education.
http://www.americanvision.org/bwarchive/4-05%20America's%20Founding.pdf


THE 1797 TREATY OF TRIPOLI

In an attempt to drive a stake in the belief that America had “been founded on Christian principles,” Allen resurrects the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli and its statement that “the Government of the United States . . . is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”8

The statement in question was to assure a radically religious (Muslim) government that America would not depose that government and impose Christianity by force. A single phrase ripped from its histori­cal context does nothing to nullify the volumes of historical evidence that Christianity was foundational to the building and maintenance of this nation.

Muslim nations were hostile to “Chris­tian nations.” The Barbary pirates habitually preyed on ships from “Christian nations,” enslaving “Christian” sea­men.

The American consul in Algiers had to construct a treaty that would assure the ruler of Tripoli that troops would not be used to impose Christianity on a Muslim people.

Those who use the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli as a defense against the Christian America thesis are silent on the 1805 treaty. For example, Alan Dershowitz cites the 1797 Treaty as “the best contemporaneous evidence” against claims that the United States was founded as a Christian nation,5 but he makes no mention of the 1805 treaty and other treaties that are specifically Trinitarian.

THE TRINITARIAN TREATIES

If treaties are going to be used to establish the religious foundation of America, then it’s essential that we look at more than one treaty. In 1783, at the close of the war with Great Britain, a peace treaty was ratified that began with these words: “In the name of the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity. It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts of the most serene and most potent Prince George the Third, by the Grace of God King of Great Britain. . . .”The treaty was signed by John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and John Jay. Keep in mind that it was Adams who signed the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli.

In 1822, the United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, ratified a “Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814." It begins with the same words found in the Preamble to the 1783 treaty: “In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity.” Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God. The 1848 Treaty with Mexico begins with “In the name of Almighty God.” The treaty also states that both countries are “under the protection of Almighty God, the author of peace. . . .”

If one line in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli turns America into a secular State (which it does not), then how does Allen deal with the treaties of 1783, 1822, 1805, and 1848 and the state constitutions? She doesn’t, because she can’t. Allen needs to go back and do a bit more research and look at resources beyond the typical college professor’s bag of tricks and sleight of hand.
http://www.americanvision.org/bwarchive/4-05%20America's%20Founding.pdf
==================================

Treaty of Tripoli

The numerous documents surrounding the Barbary Powers Conflict confirm that historically it was always viewed as a conflict between Christian America and Muslim nations. Those documents completely disprove the notion that any founding President, especially Washington, ever declared that America was not a Christian nation or people. (Chapter 16 of Original Intent will provide numerous additional current examples of historical revisionism.)
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125

HITLER, ATHEIST OR NOT?

The allegation that Hitler was, (as one post stated, an” Evangelical Christian”) is just to rich. There are any number of sites that use quotes from Hitler to prove he was a Christian. And then we also have numerous other sites that use quotes to prove otherwise.

I can list a litany of both. But here are a few points to consider from the afore mentioned list.

In Hitler's Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer's private opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the great "scourges" of history, and said of the Germans, "Let's be the only people who are immunized against this disease." He promised that "through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity." In fact, he blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. He also condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution.

Hitler reserved special scorn for the Christian values of equality and compassion, which he identified with weakness. Hitler's leading advisers like Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich and Bormann were atheists who hated religion and sought to eradicate its influence in Germany.

Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is designed to sway the masses.

In saying Hitler was a Christian, it’s for certainty he had no concern for his fellow Christians, as he slaugthered them enmass as well. Though there is no way of being positive of the exact number of Christians murdered by the Nazis, there is much speculation. It is estimated that over 660,000 Catholics were killed and approximately 3 million Christians total. The Scripture says the way to know you’ve passed from death unto life, is that you love the brethren. And by their fruits you shall know them. So I believe his actions certainly, and defiantly exclude him from being considered a “believing” Christian.

Adolf Hitler - Christian, Atheist, or Neither?
As one researcher found on the pro or con of Hitler’s Christianity… In conclusion, I think that Hitler was not an atheist, but he was not a Christian either. While he was materialist and rationalist in a lot of things, he also talked a lot about "Providence", or "Nature", as a sort of mystical force of fate, and he saw himself as somehow destined for victory even when the war was going badly for him, simply because of the purity of his purpose, his strength of will, and his feeling of destiny. I have even read that he believed in reincarnation. To me, some of his quotes and writings make it sound like he worshipped the German national identity; some make it seem like instead of God he worshipped or idealised or divinised Providence / Nature / Fate, with his glorious destiny assured no matter what; and in some ways it seems to me like he worshipped himself.

Finally, two last points. The first is not very compelling, but I found it interesting. The first time I found Hitler's Mein Kampf on-line was at a White Supremacy hate site whose homepage had a litany of Hitler's anti-Christian quotes.
The second point is that even the atheist websites highlights the difference between Hitler's public speeches before he came to power, and his attitude after 1935 when he saw Christianity as a threat to Nazi domination. http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
Much of Hitler’s inspiration came from Nietzsche, an avowed atheist. And I have to point out the strong influence of an avowed militant atheist like Nietzsche had on Hitler’s thought process, “and” his actions.’ Hitler may not have been an avowed posturing atheists, but the influence of an avowed militant adherent to atheism and “REASON” (Nietzsche) certainly did show itself in his murderous actions of Evolution and Darwinism, in “Survival of the Fittest.” Hitler’s mouthing of Christian platitudes, certainly did not show, in his actions, and deeds, a true belief in Christ’s teachings. It was Far, Far from it.

"Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and published his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man."

Thus, regardless of what he hoped for, Nietzsche offered grounds for the reprehensible Nazi ideology of a superior race exercising its will to power as it saw fit. Hitler was living out what Nietzsche had envisioned, trying to prove himself to be the Übermensch and the precursor of the Master race. He despised weakness as much as Nietzsche did and wanted to "transvalue" the current social values into something that supported the aggressive instinct. He wanted to become, as Nietzsche called it, a "lord of the earth."

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/Nietzsche.html

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/nietzsche_crimes/7.html

And as I've already posted...
Sitting in a church, spouting Christian platitudes occasionally, does not make one a Christian, any more than sitting in your garage beeping like a car horn, makes one a car.

The allegation that Hitler was, (as one post stated, an” Evangelical Christian”) is just to rich. There are any number of sites that use quotes from Hitler to prove he was a Christian. And then we also have numerous other sites that use quotes to prove otherwise.

I can list a litany of both. But here are a few points to consider from the afore mentioned list.

In Hitler's Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer's private opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the great "scourges" of history, and said of the Germans, "Let's be the only people who are immunized against this disease." He promised that "through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity." In fact, he blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. He also condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution.

Hitler reserved special scorn for the Christian values of equality and compassion, which he identified with weakness. Hitler's leading advisers like Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich and Bormann were atheists who hated religion and sought to eradicate its influence in Germany.

Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is designed to sway the masses.

In saying Hitler was a Christian, it’s for certainty he had no concern for his fellow Christians, as he slaugthered them enmass as well. Though there is no way of being positive of the exact number of Christians murdered by the Nazis, there is much speculation. It is estimated that over 660,000 Catholics were killed and approximately 3 million Christians total. The Scripture says the way to know you’ve passed from death unto life, is that you love the brethren. And by their fruits you shall know them. So I believe his actions certainly, and defiantly exclude him from being considered a “believing” Christian.

Adolf Hitler - Christian, Atheist, or Neither?
As one researcher found on the pro or con of Hitler’s Christianity… In conclusion, I think that Hitler was not an atheist, but he was not a Christian either. While he was materialist and rationalist in a lot of things, he also talked a lot about "Providence", or "Nature", as a sort of mystical force of fate, and he saw himself as somehow destined for victory even when the war was going badly for him, simply because of the purity of his purpose, his strength of will, and his feeling of destiny. I have even read that he believed in reincarnation. To me, some of his quotes and writings make it sound like he worshipped the German national identity; some make it seem like instead of God he worshipped or idealised or divinised Providence / Nature / Fate, with his glorious destiny assured no matter what; and in some ways it seems to me like he worshipped himself.

Finally, two last points. The first is not very compelling, but I found it interesting. The first time I found Hitler's Mein Kampf on-line was at a White Supremacy hate site whose homepage had a litany of Hitler's anti-Christian quotes.
The second point is that even the atheist websites highlights the difference between Hitler's public speeches before he came to power, and his attitude after 1935 when he saw Christianity as a threat to Nazi domination. http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/mischedj/ca_hitler.html
Much of Hitler’s inspiration came from Nietzsche, an avowed atheist. And I have to point out the strong influence of an avowed militant atheist like Nietzsche had on Hitler’s thought process, “and” his actions.’ Hitler may not have been an avowed posturing atheists, but the influence of an avowed militant adherent to atheism and “REASON” (Nietzsche) certainly did show itself in his murderous actions of Evolution and Darwinism, in “Survival of the Fittest.” Hitler’s mouthing of Christian platitudes, certainly did not show, in his actions, and deeds, a true belief in Christ’s teachings. It was Far, Far from it.

"Hitler often visited the Nietzsche museum in Weimar and published his veneration for the philosopher by posing for photographs of himself staring in rapture at the bust of the great man."

Thus, regardless of what he hoped for, Nietzsche offered grounds for the reprehensible Nazi ideology of a superior race exercising its will to power as it saw fit. Hitler was living out what Nietzsche had envisioned, trying to prove himself to be the Übermensch and the precursor of the Master race. He despised weakness as much as Nietzsche did and wanted to "transvalue" the current social values into something that supported the aggressive instinct. He wanted to become, as Nietzsche called it, a "lord of the earth."

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/TCEH/Nietzsche.html

http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/famous/nietzsche_crimes/7.html

And as I've already posted...
Sitting in a church, spouting Christian platitudes occasionally, does not make one a Christian, any more than sitting in your garage beeping like a car horn, makes one a car.

SITTING IN CHURCH, MY POSTS AT AC-T

Sitting in a church, spouting Christian platitudes occasionally, makes one no more of a Christian, then sitting in your garage beeping like a car horn, makes one a car.

Asheville Citizen-Times
Conservative group unlikely to be penalized for ad mocking cand...
National Center for Constitutional Studies Discover the 28 fundamental beliefs of the Founding Fathers which they said must be understood and perpetuated by every people who desired peace, prosperity, and freedom. These beliefs have made possible more progress in 200 years than was made previously in over 5,000 years. Thus the title "The 5,000 Year Leap". The following is a brief overview of the principles found in The 5,000 Year Leap, and one chapter is devotes to each of these 28 principles. Principle 1 - The only reliable basis for sound government and just human relations is Natural Law. Natural law is God's law. There are certain laws which govern the entire universe, and just as Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Independence, there are laws which govern in the affairs of men which are "the laws of nature and of nature's God." Principle 2 - A free people cannot survive under a republican constitution unless they remain virtuous and morally strong. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." - Benjamin Franklin Principle 3 - The most promising method of securing a virtuous people is to elect virtuous leaders. "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt. He therefore is the truest friend to the liberty of his country who tries most to promote its virtue, and who ... will not suffer a man to be chosen into any office of power and trust who is not a wise and virtuous man." - Samuel Adams Principle 4 - Without religion the government of a free people cannot be maintained. "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.... And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion." - George Washington Principle 5 - All things were created by God, therefore upon him all mankind are equally dependent, and to him they are equally responsible The American Founding Fathers considered the existence of the Creator as the most fundamental premise underlying all self-evident truth. They felt a person who boasted he or she was an atheist had just simply failed to apply his or her divine capacity for reason and observation. Principle 6 - All mankind were created equal. The Founders knew that in these three ways, all mankind are theoretically treated as: 1. Equal before God. 2. Equal before the law. 3. Equal in their rights. (MORE) http://www.xmissio n.com/~nccs/ftyl.h tml (Oct 25, 2007 | post #102)
Asheville Citizen-Times
Conservative group unlikely to be penalized for ad mocking cand...
I never said Jefferson was a Unitarian. The comment was that he was more Unitarian than either deist or Christian. It was not a statement labeling him as a self avowed Unitarian. Yes Jefferson has a major influence on the making of the Constitution, but he "was not" the only Founder that impacted that document. It seems because Jefferson's writings are more favorable to the secularists point of view, that he is the only one that they trot out to bloster their view point. If people don't take into account the intire documentaion of the Founders then the conclousions drawn will be distrorted. In my research I've tried to take into account all viewpoints. The reason I wish to see Christianities influence aknowledged is because unless as a nation sees where the thoughts and idea originated from, then you can't hope to keep the form of govenment the Founders made. Google the words "viturous, and the Founding Fathers." They believed that in order for a free society to remain free its people must be virtuous in their private and public lives and that Christianity and the Bible taught how to be virtuous. There are tons of quotes out there that ether side can us to bolster their point of view. Ether one side is right, or the other is. Or maybe there is a combination of both. I've found in my research of what the true nature and influence of Christianity was on the founding has lead me to believe through overwhelming evidence that, yes indeed the Christian beliefs of the Founders did indeed have a major influence on the construction of the Constitution, and the founding of this nation. When I started my research I was looking for the truth of the matter. If I had found the claims of the those that believe the nation was founded as a totally secular nation, without any other influences except the philosophies of the age of enlightenment then I would have gladly acknowledged that fact. But I found the Founders papers absolutely saturated with references to God, the Christian faith, and the role of the faith on government and the individuals in that government. Did you know that since most of the Founders were Calvinists the very structure of limited government was a Calvinist concept? Calvinists not only believe civil government is ordained and established by God, they also believe that God has given civil government only limited authority. The same power that grants authority to government, also limits that authority. And these Calvinists influences go on and on in the founding structure of this nation. (Oct 25, 2007 | post #101)
Asheville Citizen-Times
Conservative group unlikely to be penalized for ad mocking cand...
Concerning religion, people "have" to believe in something. There is not a vacuum filled by unbelief. We "all" believe in "something. " Ether the beliefs will be a secularist, atheistic belief system, or it will be in some form of a divine being. The definition of religion is: A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Everybody believes something, and even what appears to be a rejection of all beliefs is a kind of belief. One holds something to be true. Maybe what you hold to be true is that nothing else is true, but that is something that you believe is true in itself. This is not double talk. Even agnostics have a type of belief. They believe that it is not possible to know things about ultimate issues like the existence of God. My point is that there is no neutral place to position yourself in philosophic space. There is no place where you can place yourself in which you believe nothing and therefore don't take on some burden of proof about what it is that you hold. You can't fairly say, "Well, Christian, you believe this and you must prove this, but I have no burden of proof regarding what I believe because I believe nothing." There is no person who believes nothing about ultimate things, and even if you are agnostic you believe in the justifiability of your agnosticism -- your uncertainty -- and you really have a burden of proof to justify your uncertainty -- your unwillingness to decide -- to justify your agnosticism. So there is nowhere someone can stand where he has no beliefs. Pointing out the inconvenient truth: You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta. It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.” And that’s why many folks spend their lives ministering in prisons, and other places helping the least, the last and the lost. It's hard for atheists to account for altruism. The atheistic view point offers no reason as to why someone might give up their lives, or even their lifstyle for the benefit of others, especially those whom they do not know. (Oct 25, 2007 | post #100)

that of the man who justified suicide, because the Bible says in one place, "Judas went and hanged himself," and in another. "Go thou, and do likewise.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070904092515AAWUvXC
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=26953

CONCERNING BELIEF AND UNBELIEF "ATHEISTS"

Concerning belief or unbelief. There is not a vacuum filled by unbelief. We "all" believe in "something. " Ether the beliefs will be a secularist, atheistic belief system, or it will be in some form of a divine being. The definition of religion is: A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a human community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Everyone believes something, even what appears to be a rejection of all beliefs, is a kind of belief. One holds something to be true. Maybe what you hold to be true is that nothing else is true, but that is something that you believe is true in itself. So there has never been a time when man did not believe in “something.” Even a “belief” in no God, or Gods.

This is not double talk. Even agnostics have a type of belief. They believe that it is not possible to know things about ultimate issues like the existence of God. My point is that there is no neutral place to position yourself in philosophic space. There is no place where you can place yourself in which you believe nothing and therefore don't take on some burden of proof about what it is that you hold. You can't fairly say, "Well, Christian, you believe this and you must prove this, but I have no burden of proof regarding what I believe because I believe nothing." There is no person who believes nothing about ultimate things, and even if you are agnostic or atheist, you believe in the justifiability of your agnosticism -- your uncertainty -- and you really have a burden of proof to justify your uncertainty -- your unwillingness to decide -- to justify your agnosticism, or your atheism. So there is nowhere someone can stand where he has no beliefs. Pointing out the inconvenient truth, as I’ve stated before: You won’t find many atheists feeding the hungry and ministering to the sick in places like Africa or Mother Teresa’s Calcutta. It is precisely because people believe in the divinity of Jesus that they are willing to give up their lives (sometimes literally) in service to those whom Jesus calls “His brothers.” And that’s why many folks spend their lives ministering in prisons, and other places helping the least, the last and the lost. It's hard for atheists to account for altruism. The atheistic view point offers no reason as to why someone might give up their lives, or even their lifstyle for the benefit of others, especially those whom they do not know. (Oct 25, 2007

Hitler's actions
Murder of Erich Klausener, the German leader of Catholic Action and other Catholic leaders by the SS. [Bullock, p. 305].
Hitler killed himself (a mortal sin).
Hitler was married to Eva Braun by a secular city official [Last Days of Hitler, p. 234]. He took no counsel from a clergyman before his death. [Last Days of Hitler, Ch. 6-7].
The Nazis removed Catholic nuns from all social service jobs.
This public speeches in this section are perhaps the least trustworthy of the lot and the reason for this is clear from the words of Hitler's' biographer Alan Bullock: "Astuteness; the ability to lie, twist, cheat and flatter; the elimination of sentimentality or loyalty in favor of ruthlessness were the qualities which enabled men to rise; above all, strength of will. Such were the principles which Hitler drew from his years in Vienna...He learned to lie with conviction and to dissemble with candor." [Bullock, p. 36-7]

Hitler: crazy, whacked-out "suspected atheist"--Suspected is in quotes, because though Hitler occasionally used the Church and spoke in "religious" themes, the general consensus is that it was all part of his manipulation and propaganda to get the German population to accomplish his will. Much of his inspiration came from Nietzsche, an avowed atheist.’
What is even worse about these facts is that all of these people were murdered by atheistic regimes in less than 50 years.

So, let's not kid ourselves about the implications of belief systems. The truth is that power-hungry people will use any excuse to accomplish their goals. They might cloak their motivations in religion or atheism, but either way, it doesn't prove that there is no God. It only proves that great evil can dwell in the human heart, a given premise in Judeo-Christian thought.

capo...Hitler was not a Christian. He may not have been a strict atheist, although that is hard to tell, which is why I wrote the little blurb about it in the first place. Trust me...I don't think that anyone wants to claim Hitler as one of their own.

As far as Stalin and Pol Pot...Communism is very clearly based on the rejection of religion. To deny that is to dny history.

You can say, "They don't represent "true" atheists, or my brand of atheism. They are anomalies." However, that's not the point. I could just as easily say that the people who ran the Spanish Inquisition weren't "true" Christians, (and trust me, their actions definitely warrant that assertion) but how far would that argument go with you? Wouldn't you respond to that by saying that even if they weren't "true" Christians, that somehow they were influenced by Chrisitanity and therefore the casualties lay at the feet of
religious belief?

That is my main issue with atheists. One can't have it both ways. If an argument is going to further atheism's point, shouldn't atheism be able to stand up to its own line of thinking?

"As far as Stalin and Pol Pot...Communism is very clearly based on the rejection of religion. To deny that is to deny history."\

Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is designed to sway the masses.

This was an ethnic and not a religious designation. Hitler's anti-Semitism was secular.
Hitler's Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer's private opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the great "scourges" of history, and said of the Germans, "Let's be the only people who are immunized against this disease." He promised that "through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity." In fact, he blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. He also condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution.

CHURCH & STATE ATHEISTS

Now the other side of the story...

George Washington's Prayer Journal
http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/george.html

From Truth or Fiction website.
Religious Significance of the George Washington and the Washington Monument-Mostly Truth!
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/w/washmonument.htm

CONTRADICTION? OR SYMBOLIC TOLERANCE?
THE STATE BECOMES THE CHURCH:
JEFFERSON AND MADISON
It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government.
=====================================================
The Old House of Representatives
Church services were held in what is now called Statuary Hall from 1807 to 1857. The first services in the Capitol, held when the government moved to Washington in the fall of 1800, were conducted in the "hall" of the House in the north wing of the building. In 1801 the House moved to temporary quarters in the south wing, called the "Oven," which it vacated in 1804, returning to the north wing for three years. Services were conducted in the House until after the Civil War. The Speaker's podium was used as the preacher's pulpit.
===========================================
Communion Service in the Treasury Building
Manasseh Cutler here describes a four-hour communion service in the Treasury Building, conducted by a Presbyterian minister, the Reverend James Laurie: "Attended worship at the Treasury. Mr. Laurie alone. Sacrament. Full assembly. Three tables; service very solemn; nearly four hours." From original documents.
Journal entry, December 23, 1804
============================================
Adams's Description of a Church Service in the Supreme Court
John Quincy Adams here describes the Reverend James Laurie, pastor of a Presbyterian Church that had settled into the Treasury Building, preaching to an overflow audience in the Supreme Court Chamber, which in 1806 was located on the ground floor of the Capitol.
Diary entry, February 2, 1806
John Quincy Adams. Copyprint
Adams Family Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston (177)
==================================================
Church Services in Congress after the Civil War
Charles Boynton (1806-1883) was in 1867 chaplain of the House of Representatives and organizing pastor of the First Congregational Church in Washington, which was trying at that time to build its own sanctuary. In the meantime the church, as Boynton informed potential donors, was holding services "at the Hall of Representatives" where "the audience is the largest in town. . . .nearly 2000 assembled every Sabbath" for services, making the congregation in the House the "largest Protestant Sabbath audience then in the United States." The First Congregational Church met in the House from 1865 to 1868.
Fundraising brochure
Charles B. Boynton. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 1867
Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress (18
====================================
The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html
===============================================

The anti-religion, no correct that, "anti-Christian" crowd would have had Jefferson, Madison and Adams, as well as the rest of the Founders that attended services on public property taken to court for daring to attend services on government property. The strict adherence to the sepreation of church and state by Jefferson, and Madison proported by the ant-Christian revisionists seems to have not troubled Jefferson or Madison none at all. Nor any of the citizens, or courts of that time.

Benjamin Franklin

Constitutional Convention Address on Prayer

I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth -- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that "except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that service.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm
=====================================
John Adams

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.”
[June 28, 1813; Letter to Thomas Jefferson]

“We recognize no Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus!”
[April 18, 1775, on the eve of the Revolutionary War after a British major ordered John Adams, John Hancock, and those with them to disperse in “the name of George the Sovereign King of England." ]

• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
[letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress]

"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
===============================================
Our founding documents are satuated with religious phrasolgy. Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, Endowed by their Creator--The Declaration of Independence, Reverance for our Creator --Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms: July 6, 1775, Unto the honour of Almighty God, and for the salvation of the souls----Magna Carta: as confirmed by Edward I with his seal in 1297, and it gose on and on.

If any of these documents were put forth by our government today the ACLU and their atheists friends, like Michael Newdow would piss themselves screaming "the government is invoking religion!"

The whole point of the Founders using relegious langueage in our founding documents was to empahsis, and establish that our rights "do not" come from man or the state, they come from God. And to deny that concept, puts all our God given rights in jepody. What man, or the state gives, they feel they can take away. Not so, if it is established that man, or the state did not give us those rights in the first place.

While I can agree with atheits and secularists that we should not have a state supported goverment, as in "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience"-- Atheists and secularists "CAN NOT" in any way shape or form, aknowledge that relegion, in particular the Judeao-Christian religion had "any" kind of influence on the shaping, founding, and philosphy of this nation. Give me a break!! Even when we see tons, and tons of that influence from the Founders writings. For the secularists, and atheists, to give any credence to our Christian heritage, would mean giving ligitimacy to Christianity, and they "CAN NOT EVER" afford to do that. Because in their worldview, relegion must be smashed and destoryed, and giving legitmacy in any way to what they hate, would not work toward their agenda. So deception, and bised omissions must be the order of the day when examing, and siting the founding documents.
=====================================
The Point!!

Our founding documents are saturated with religious philosophy . Laws of Nature and of Nature's God, Endowed by their Creator--The Declaration of Independence, Reverence for our Creator --Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms: July 6, 1775, Unto the honor of Almighty God, and for the salvation of the souls----Magna Carta: as confirmed by Edward I with his seal in 1297, and it goes on and on.

If any of these documents were put forth by our government today the ACLU and their atheists friends, like Michael Newdow would piss themselves screaming "the government is invoking religion!"

The whole point of the Founders using religious language in our founding documents was to emphasis, and establish that our rights "do not" come from man or the state, they come from God. And to deny that concept, puts all our God given rights in jeopardy. What man, or the state gives, they feel they can take away. Not so, if it is established that man, or the state did not give us those rights in the first place.

While I can agree with atheist and secularists that we should not have a state supported government, as in "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience"-- Atheists and secularists "CAN NOT" in any way shape or form, acknowledge that religion, in particular the Judaeo-Christian religion had "any" kind of influence on the shaping, founding, and philosophy of this nation. Give me a break!! Even when we see tons, and tons of that influence from the Founders writings. For the secularists, and atheists, to give any credence to our Christian heritage, would mean giving legitimacy to Christianity, and they "CAN NOT EVER" afford to do that. Because in their worldview, religion must be smashed and destroyed, and giving legitimacy in any way to what they hate, would not work toward their agenda. So deception, and biased omissions must be the order of the day when examining, and siting the founding documents.

I could find tons and tons of quotes from the founders, and founding documents for my position, as well from the other position of "religion has no influence at all on the shaping of the country." Really you can find information for whatever your position is. But the overwhelming evidence is that Christianity, especially Calvinism had a profound influence on the founding of this nation.