Public and private comments were quite different then, as now.  For me, the private comments are more reliable

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Some of the founding fathers derided religion and wanted to make sure it would not be involved in the actual governing of the nation.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Jeez, if it isn’t Robert Wright scribing nonsense, it’s Robert Knight. Who’s next? Robert Bright?

Better yet, Robert Wright could muster up the courage to come down on the right side of that ridiculous fence he’s been sitting on all this time (man, his arse must be sore) and become Robert ‘The Bright’ Wright.

Then, even better still, he could become a really combative figure in the new atheist movement and become Robert ‘The Bright Knight’ Wright!

And, I’m done.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Does anyone really know where the idea of a separation of church and state really comes from? I do. First of all, let’s not confuse this with the first amendment which states we have freedom of religion, speech, the press, assembly and petition. It is the first freedom in this amendment with which I have concerned myself for the subject of this note (which by the way, was written by me, Don Rosecrans, and not copied from somewhere else [other than the sources for definition of terms like the one directly below]). So if you have a problem with what I am saying, don’t blame it on Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin…because I wrote it; now to continue:
Freedom of religion is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or community, in public or private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance; the concept is generally recognized also to include the freedom to change religion or not to follow any religion. The freedom to leave or discontinue membership in a religion or religious group —in religious terms called “apostasy” —is also a fundamental part of religious freedom.
Freedom of religion is considered by many people and nations to be a fundamental human right. Thomas Jefferson said (1807) “among the inestimable of our blessings, also, is that ...of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will.

After reading the 1st amendment to The Constitution, a church organization known as the Danbury Baptists wrote Thomas Jefferson a letter. They were concerned that the amendment would give the US Government the right to come into their church and tell them how to worship or how to conduct their business. They wanted their fears allayed that the government could come in and take over what they were doing. In response to those concerns Thomas Jefferson wrote response to the Danbury Baptists:
To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.
Thomas Jefferson was letting them know that the government would never step in and tell them what they could do or what they couldn’t do when they worshiped. They would also never decree by law that you have to worship in any one form or fashion, or at all for that matter.
He did not in any way insinuate that we should remove or separate from the Judeo-Christian ethics and standards that were written into our laws and constitution already. Nor would the Danbury Baptists have any reason to request this; they of course being Christian themselves. This letter is the only place that the language “separation of church from state appears anywhere.” It isn’t in the pre-amble or the constitution itself…it isn’t in the declaration of independence…and it’s not in any of our laws. The fact that our Constitution is based on Judeo-Christian law doesn’t necessitate that you worship God…but you still have to follow the law.
The idea that our country wasn’t founded on Judeo-Christian laws is ludicrous and completely fabricated. If you take a close look at the room that Congress meets in, in the US Capitol building, it is ringed with busts of our former law makers. All of these are half busts that look similar to the profile on a woman’s cameo broach…all with the exception of one. This bust is a full front bust that stares down from the middle of the room, directly at the spot where the Speaker of the House (currently held by Nancy Pelosi) stands. THIS BUST IS OF THE FIRST LAW GIVER…MOSES; the man that was ultimately given God’s law to give to His people; that same law that all our country’s laws were founded on.
Under Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution the Speaker of the House is ultimately in charge of the legislative branch of our government. THE LAW & THE LAW MAKERS. That bust of Moses was set apart and placed where it is, to always remind The Speaker of the House and our country that we are subject to God’s laws…not your god’s laws…but the God of Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The One True God. Regardless of whether or not you believe in Him…our fore fathers did…and they built our country on those principles, and made that room reflect that we are always to be accountable to those principles. They did not intend there to be a divergence from Him where our country was concerned. They intended the constitution to stand on its own…it is not a “living, breathing, changing document” to be set aside or ratified when the whims and excesses of a new generation deem it to be outdated or old fashioned. It is written as it was intended. This is a great country…we’ve made our mistakes and we’ve taken our lumps…but our founding fathers would be very disappointed at how we’ve tried to re-write their intentions and bastardized and misconstrued their beliefs to fit our own.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

What a non sequitur. I could go on and on about how modern liberty and democracy is most definitely NOT based on Christianity, but the thing is, I don’t need to. The implication people like Knight are trying to make here is that liberty and democracy DEPEND on Christianity. And yet the reason we like liberty and democracy - the very reason Christians try to claim them as their own in the first place - is because they produce the best society in which to live. And if liberty and democracy produce the best society in which to live, then that alone is reason enough to support them; meaning we don’t need Christianity in order to support them!

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

James Madison used the word ‘angels’ in a sentance?!  There’s a bust of Moses in the US capitol?!  Holy crap!  There IS a God!  And it’s OBVIOUSLY the Christian one!  QED!!! Consider me convinced!  I just hope He will forgive me for ever doubting.

Seriously, what non-arguments, what non-evidence, either for existence of a god in the first place, or for the “religious (specifically xian) motivations” of the founding fathers.  In the same sort of extra-epi-peri-tangential-notgermane-completelyinsane way my mother has tried to convince me of god’s existence by saying “Bach wrote SDG on many of his manuscripts.”  Oh, mom.  *shakes head*

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Don,

Blanket statements such as “Judeo-Christian ethics and standards” and “Judeo-Christian ethics and laws” must be defined.

There is so much good and so much bad in “Judeo-Christian” laws that if the founders did base their ideas on Christianity then they must have cherry-picked what they thought was the good stuff from god’s law. If you have ever read the bible you would know this to be true; vast majority of god’s law handed down to Moses was obviously edited out by the founders. Otherwise why didn’t the founders just say the bible is the constitution? They were smart and certainly had a country to run, if the founding document was already written by god that would have saved so much time, no?

Maybe you would be correct if you said “Christian ethics influenced some of our founders in public decision making, but not all. And some of the laws of the biblical god influenced some of our laws, but not all.”

Please, if you make a statement like this then you must let us all know which specific “Judeo-Christian” laws the founders used. You must prove that it is a purely Christian law with no analogs in other cultures or civilizations throughout the world and throughout human history. Otherwise, the ideas are not Christian and instead fall into the far better category of “human”.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

”...Even the faithful can’t really get their deepest moral principles from religion—because books like the Bible and the Qur’an are full of barbaric injunctions that all decent and sane people must now reinterpret or ignore. How is it that most Jews, Christians, and Muslims are opposed to slavery? You don’t get this moral insight from scripture, because the God of Abraham expects us to keep slaves. Consequently, even religious fundamentalists draw many of their moral positions from a wider conversation about human values that is not, in principle, religious. We are the guarantors of the wisdom we find in scripture, such as it is. And we are the ones who must ignore God when he tells us to kill people for working on the Sabbath.”  -Sam Harris-

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

”“Judeo-Christian ethics and laws”? Do you mean your God’s orders as written in the Bible?

If that’s the case, then you must be wrong because there’s no such law in the US that says disobedient children or people working on the Sabbath day must be put to death, like it says in your holy Bible.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

If you want simple, irrefutable reasons why The United States WAS NOT based on Christians principles, watch this 10 minute video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw45_3vbWQA

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Response to Applebee,

Your youtube results indicate that your research has just started.  So, I refer you to my over 1000 blogs on God,, theology, religion, materialism, evolution, atheism, science, etc. at http://georgeshollenberger.blogspot.com/. In my blogs, you will find that all scriptures are man-made thoughts of widely accepted people.

Jesus is not the Son of God. A recent blog tells you the only path to God and the only path to a real science.

Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not know how to build a nation because the Jews and Christians never understood Jesus. And the Muslims never understood Muhammad.and his Christianity.

George Shollenberger

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

George Shollenberger,

To begin with, I agree with you 100%.
Actually, I’m new to youtube, but I’ve been studying religion for a decade and a half. I just started making videos on youtube in order to get some publicity for my new book ‘The Common Sense Ethics of a Blue Collar Philosopher’.
As a life-long Atheist, I believe it’s time to expose religious fundamentalists for the hypocritical frauds they truly are…and that’s just one reason I wrote this book.
Have you read Prof. Bart Ehrman? Great stuff! But he’s simply too lenient on believers.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Religion doesn’t own morality and ethics.

Have a listen to Sam Harris, you know, one of the founders of this website.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It wasn’t born a Christian nation.

But let’s for a brief minute suppose it was. What consequence does it have? We can replace the word “Christian” with a myriad of other things, which the US actually was.

The US was born a “White” nation.

The US was born a “Slave-holding” nation.

The US was born a “thirteen-state” nation.

The US was born a “sexist” nation. etc.

You get my point.

I would argue that Christianity does not hold patents on any ethical code, which is quite simply a product of social evolution. The prerequisite to understanding this is having the mental capacity to walk and chew gum at the same time. From generation to generation people learned certain things that are helpful to know. Ex: you shouldn’t eat certain berries because the last guy who did is now dead, just as they learned that it’s better for the community to have monogamy, because Sally, Jim, and Bob and others are not getting along very well. So on and so forth. These values were passed down through methods of acculturation: usually songs, games, fairytales (ex: bible, and other offenders). Grown women and men ought to know the distinction between reality and fables. Whether they do that or not is really their business, so long as they don’t attempt to undermine the American value of freedom that I cherish so much.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Okay, for passing arguments sake lets say this is a country founded on Christianity. It was also founded on the backs of African American slaves, oppressed women, and the ability to modify the government when presented with a reason for change that promoted the welfare of the nation.

*True freedom now reigns for all races in America.
*Equal rights for all sexes apply
*I will die fighting for this country to destroy christianity and all affiliation with child rapists, murderers, and any other psychopathic people religion throws our way.

Mitchell Poore
United States Navy

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It seems to me that the only 2 individuals made substantive contributions to this dialogue -  Don and Ryan.  Don focused the group to historical communications that addressed the subject in the artical.  Ryan had a logical request for clarification.  I would like to see more dialogue like this on the Project Reason website.

Wave Rider

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

DON?  Whare is this bust you refer to?

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/art/common/slideshow/vp_busts.jsp

You don't have permission to flag this entry.