Christian Forums

While the U.S.A. was founded by Christians, today the U.S.A. is a pluralistic society.

At the theological level we are talking about eternity and final authority.

At the political level we are talking about time and temporal authority.

KJV Mark 12:17  And Jesus answering said unto them,
Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and to God the things that are God's.
And they marvelled at him.

When Webster collated the English language 1828,

his dictionary matched the KJV Holy Bibles exactly.

There were no manuscript revisions of the 1611 KJV until the 1881 RV (Revised Version).

KJV Bible Christians founded the U.S.A.

KJV Bible Christians founded Harvard, Yale and Princeton.

There were no manuscript revisions of the 1611 KJV until the 1881 RV (Revised Version).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* THE FOLLOWING are just a tiny sampling of the book's quotations from the past 400 years,
which demonstrate that devout Christians have ALWAYS held that the KJB
was the inspired word of God:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1620  Contrary to popular misinformation, the KJB was brought over on the Mayflower
by John Alden.

1636  In America, John Wheelright's Fast Day Sermon quoted from the KJB, not the Geneva.

In the 1600s, early American Baptist, John Clark quoted from the KJB in his Ill-Newes
from New England.

In the 1600s John Bunyan constantly quotes from the KJB, not the Geneva - to the consternation of today's five point Calvinists. Bunyan's belief that the KJB is inspired covers several pages.

1700s  Michael Faraday (1791-1867) was an English chemist and physicist. He established
the basis for the electromagnetic field concept in physics, as well as electromagnetic induction
(the principle behind the electric transformer and generator). It was said that he believed in
"the absolute inspiration of the English Bible as a whole"
(Silvanus Phillips Thompson, Michael Faraday, His Life and Work, 1898).

1839  "...it [the KJV] is now held forth by the American Bible Society as a standard for the whole pagan world, so sacred as to justify the extinction of existing translations in languages spoken
by more than half the heathen on the globe...In other words, King James‟ version is to become
the standard of translation. Here then, is, virtually, a decree that the English translation is
The Bible... more to be regarded than even the original Hebrew and Greek text"
(Quarterly Papers, American and Foreign Bible Society, July, 1839).

1857  "The general excellence of the English Version being admitted, its perfection is assumed,
and therefore all preceding and subsequent versions must be unworthy of notice; nay,
even the original text need not be consulted..."
(Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, The English Bible, and Our Duty with Regard to It, 1857; 1871).

1876  The book is full of quotes demonstrating that believers and critics alike agree that: "...popular readers who regarded every letter of the English version as directly
dictated by the Holy Ghost..." were in the majority.
(Sir Leslie Stephen, History of English Thought in the Eighteenth Century, Vol.1, 1876)

1878  Those who deny the inspiration of the KJB are joining hands with occult spiritualists who boasted that, "Departures from ancestral faiths are rapidly increasing...Such dogmas as the six days creation of the world; the fall of man through Adam and Eve; ...the plenary inspiration of King James‟ Bible...hell...and kindred theological dogmas, are fast dying out of all cultured minds. Freethought, scientific research, and a potent Spiritualism...have, with united persistence, undermined the theologies of the ages."
(J. M. Peebles, New York Freethinker's Association, 1878)

1881  The New York Times printed the sermon of Dewit Talmage who said, "Let not the hands
of worldly criticism, pedantry, or useless disturbance touch that ark! Remember the fate of Uzzah! We are in the midst of an agitation caused by the revision of the New Testament.
We had a translation 270 years old...satisfactory to all Christendom except a few doctors
of Divinity... (Applause)...put it upon my study table, into my family room, or into my pulpit,
as a substitute for the King James translation, I never will. (Great applause.) I put my hand
upon the old book and take an oath of allegiance to it, so help me God!...Religion has not so much to fear from infidels as from mistaken friends of the Bible...I have some practical advice for private Christians. Hold on to your Bible... The old Bible is for me; it is good enough for you...
The Bible in your houses is the Bible that will be quoted for all time to come..." ( June 6, 1881).

1882  "I unhesitatingly say, that the same Holy Ghost who gave inspiration to the Apostles
to write out the New Testament, presided over and inspired those men in the translation
and bringing out of the entire Bible in the English language. And I also say, that no version since, brought out in the English language, has the Divine sanction...Now, why would God cause at this age and in these trying times, versions in the same language to be brought out, to conflict...?...
He would not...I furthermore say, that King James' Translation of the Bible is the only Divinely Inspired translation..." (William Washington Simkins, The English Version of the New Testament
Compared with King James' Translation, 1882).

1897  "A hundred years ago the Authorized Version, which had been in our fathers' hands
for nearly two hundred years, was no longer a version. It had come to have all the significance
of an original book. Outside the pulpit and the university no one dreamed that it was translated from another language...When our fathers, as they did, stoutly maintained the doctrine of verbal inspiration, the inspired words they really had in mind were not Hebrew or Greek, but English words; the words of that version which Selden called "the best translation in the world,"
and of which the late Master of Balliol once remarked...In a certain sense, the Authorized Version
is more inspired than the original‟... (Minutes of the Annual Meeting, General Association of the Congregational Churches of Massachusetts, 1987).

1882  Spurgeon said, "In the margin of our Testaments - I mean those of the authorized version which will never be parted with for the so-called revised version..." (C.H. Spurgeon, "Acceptable Service," Sermon No. 1639, Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit; sermon delivered on January 15, 1882).

1945  President Harry S. Truman 
"The King James version of the Bible is the best there is or ever has been or will be,
and you get a bunch of college professors spending years working on it,
and all they do is take the poetry out of it." (President Harry S. Truman, quoted in, Merle Miller, Plain Speaking: An Oral Biography of Harry S. Truman, 1985)

1959  "As for me, I will take the King James translation as the very Word of God for the English people. I believe it is without error. It is 100 percent correct...people who do not know a word
of Greek can become real Bible scholars. Many times their understanding is far greater than
the Greek scholars." (B.F. Dearmore, The Message, "Greek Versus English," May 28, 1959)

1963  "...a group that is no longer interested in the Greek or Hebrew...
but who profoundly believe that the King James Version is an inspired translation..."
(Margaretta K. Bowers, Conflicts of the Clergy, 1963)

1890  The Supreme Court 
"...the practice of reading the King James version of the Bible, commonly and only received
as inspired and true by the Protestant religious sects..." (Decision of the Supreme Court
of the State of Wisconsin Relating to the Reading of the Bible in Public Schools, 1890).

1922  Yale Professor William Lyon Phelps
"...our English translation is even better than the original Hebrew and Greek.
There is only one way to explain this; I have no theory to account for the so-called
'inspiration of the Bible,' but I am confident that the Authorized Version was inspired"
(The Biblical Review, Volume 7, Biblical Seminary in New York, 1922).

1975  The Cambridge History of the Bible admits, "... its victory was so  complete that its text acquired a sanctity properly ascribable only to the immediate voice of God; to multitudes
of English-speaking Christians it has seemed little less than blasphemy to tamper with the words
of the King James Version." (Stanley Lawrence Greenslade, The Cambridge History of the Bible, Volume 1, 1975)

1956  "In practice most Englishmen believed in the inspiration of the Authorized Version
(hence the alarm over textual criticism and revision)..."
(L. E. Elliot-Binns, English Thought, 1860-1900, 1956).

1923  The skeptics mockingly admitted
"According to the 'Fundamentalists' the Bible is inerrant, verbally inspired, the final authority
in all matters...the atonement involves an actual cleansing of the sinner by the real blood of Jesus; Jesus is soon coming to set up his kingdom on the earth; the end of the world is near...
Every letter, syllable, word, phrase, clause, sentence, chapter and book is perfect as these now stand in the King James Version of the English Bible." (The Universalist Leader, Volume 26, 1923)

1946  "When a Bible teacher refers to the original languages of the Bible,
there is a danger of giving a wrong impression about the authority and true value of the standard King James Version. Too many are ready to say that they have a better rendering [saying,
'that word means'], and often in such a way as to give an impression that the King James Version is faulty, or that other versions are much better. We believe that God overruled His gift of the King James Version of 1611, so that we have in it the very Word of God."
(Le Baron Wilmont Kinney, Acres of Rubies, Loizeaux, 1946)

Spurgeon said, "...If this book be not infallible, where shall we find infallibility? We have given up the Pope, for he has blundered often and terribly; but we shall not set up instead of him a horde
of little popelings fresh from college. Are these correctors of Scripture infallible? Is it certain that our Bibles are not right, but that the critics must be so?... Striplings fresh from reading the last new novel correct the notions of their fathers, who were men of weight and character.
Doctrines which produced the godliest generation that ever lived on the face of the earth
are scouted as sheer folly...But where shall infallibility be found?... Are we now to believe that
infallibility is with learned men? Now, Farmer Smith, when you have read your Bible, and have enjoyed its precious promises, you will have, tomorrow morning, to go down the street to ask the scholarly man at the parsonage whether this portion of the Scripture belongs to the inspired part
of the Word, or whether it is of dubious authority... All possibility of certainty is transferred from the spiritual man to a class of persons whose scholarship is pretentious, but who do not even pretend to spirituality. We shall gradually be so bedoubted and becriticized, that only a few of the most profound will know what is Bible, and what is not, and they will dictate to all the rest of us.
I have no more faith in their mercy than in their accuracy: they will rob us of all that we hold most dear, and glory in the cruel deed. This same reign of terror we shall not endure, for we still believe that God revealeth himself rather to babes than to the wise and prudent, and we are fully assured that our own old English version of the Scriptures is sufficient for plain men for all purposes of life, salvation, and godliness. We do not despise learning, but we will never say of culture or criticism. "These be thy gods, O Israel!"
(Spurgeon, "The Greatest Fight in the World," delivered at the Pastor‟s College Conference, April, 1891).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* QUOTATIONS from the past 400 years, defending the inspiration of our beloved King James Bible are given below and were taken from the new book, The Word: God Will Keep It by Pastor Joey Faust. Copy and paste the quotations and share them with your friends.

While there were many Christians that came to escape the religious persecution in England, most of the Founding Fathers were deists. While they believed in a divine creator, they didn't necessarily hold to Christianity. Obviously many of our societal customs have come from the Puritans and the Quakers. We owe the rapid expansion of our country as well as our rapid rise to superpower status to the Protestant work ethic. But to say that we were founded as a Christian nation is not entirely true. We were founded as a nation that would be tolerant to all religious beliefs. We found out very soon how long those lofty goals lasted. We love to scream from the mountaintops about how we have abandoned our Christian principles as as a society, but from the Salem witch trials of the Puritans to the Klan that came from the southern protestant churches, we pretty much started off throwing that Christian love out the window. 

.



No, while some were deists, they did believe the KJV Holy Bible was given by inspiration of God,

There were manuscript revisions of the 1611 KJV until the 1881 RV (Revised Version).

KJV Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself ?






.

Quote from: makahiya on Tue Mar 12, 2013 - 12:44:11
.



No, while some were deists, they did believe the KJV Holy Bible was given by inspiration of God,

There were manuscript revisions of the 1611 KJV until the 1881 RV (Revised Version).

KJV Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself ?

We get it, you are a KJV Bible salesman. Now, and this is very important for the well being of everyone on this board, Let. It. Go.

I never tried to sell anyone anything !

KJV Exodus 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.



KJV Proverbs 14:5 A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.

KJV Proverbs 12:17 He that speaketh truth sheweth forth righteousness: but a false witness deceit.

KJV Proverbs 25:18 A man that beareth false witness against his neighbour                                 

is a maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow.

The KJV?  That's your idol, not mine.

QuoteNo, while some were deists, they did believe the KJV Holy Bible was given by inspiration of God,

It's been a while since I studied Deism, but I don't think these two statements can be justified one to another. Don't get me wrong, I use only the KJV Bible, but Deism itself denies the divinity of Jesus Christ and adheres to a theology whereby one acknowledges God, but nothing more. They reject any written revelations and such because they amount to nothing but hearsay and there is no way to prove that these revelations actually happened.

Quote from: Mere Nick on Tue Mar 12, 2013 - 14:25:32
The KJV?  That's your idol, not mine.

KJV Psalms 119:105 Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.

KJV Psalms 119:114 Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word.

KJV Psalms 119:140 Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

KJV Psalms 119:160 Thy word is true from the beginning . . .

KJV Psalms 119:161 . . . my heart standeth in awe of thy word.

KJV Psalms 138:2 . . . thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.




.

The colonists, including their philosophy in their religion, as the people up to that time had always done, were neither skeptics nor sensualists, but Christians. The school that bows to the senses as the sole interpreter of truth had little share in colonizing our America. The colonists from Main to Carolina, the adventurous companies of Smith, the proscribed Puritans that freighted the fleet of Winthrop, the Quaker outlaws that fled from jails with a Newgate prisoner as their sovereign-all had faith in God and in the soul. The system which had been revealed in Judea-the system which combines and perfects the symbolic wisdom of the Orient and the reflective genius of Greece- the system, conforming to reason, yet kindling enthusiasm; always hastening reform, yet always conservative; proclaiming absolute equality among men, yet not suddenly abolishing the unequal institutions of society; guaranteeing absolute freedom, yet invoking the inexorable restrictions of duty; in the highest degree theoretical, and yet in the highest degree practical; awakening the inner man to a consciousness of his destiny, and yet adapted with exact harmony to the outward world; at once divine and human-this system was professed in every part of our widely extended country, and cradled our freedom.
     Our fathers were not only Christians; they were, even in Maryland by a vast majority, elsewhere almost unanimously, Protestants. Now the Protestant reformation, considered in its largest influence on politics, was the awakening of the common people to freedom of mind.
     During the decline of the Roman empire, the oppressed invoked the power of Christianity to resist the supremacy of brute force; and the merciful priest assumed the office of protector.  The tribunes of Rome, appointed by the people, had been declared inviolable by the popular vote; the new tribunes of humanity, deriving their office from religion, and ordained by religion to a still more venerable sanctity, defended the poor man's house against lust by the sacrament of marriage;  restrained arbitrary passion by a menace of the misery due to sin unrepented of and unatoned; and taught respect for the race by sprinkling every new-born child with the water of life, confirming every youth, bearing the oil of consolation to every death-bed, and sharing freely with every human being the consecrated emblem of God present with man.
     But from protectors priests grew to be usurpers.  Expressing all moral truth by the mysteries of symbols, and reserving to themselves the administration of seven sacraments, they claimed a monopoly of thought and exercised an absolute spiritual dominion.  Human bondage was strongly riveted; for they had fastened it on the affections, the understanding, and the reason.  Ordaining their own successors, they ruled human destiny at birth, on entering active life, at marriage, when frailty breathed its confession, when faith aspired to communion with God, and at death.  (History of the United States, Bancroft Vol. 1.)

John Adams - A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (On man's standing in the order of creation)

"Ignorance and inconsideration are the two great causes of the ruin of mankind." This is an observation of Dr. Tillotson, with relation to the interest of his fellow men in a future and immortal state. But it is of equal truth and importance if applied to the happiness of men in society, on this side the grave. In the earliest ages of the world, absolute monarchy seems to have been the universal form of government. Kings, and a few of their great counsellors and captains, exercised a cruel tyranny over the people, who held a rank in the scale of intelligence, in those days, but little higher than the camels and elephants that carried them and their engines to war.

By what causes it was brought to pass, that the people in the middle ages became more intelligent in general, would not, perhaps, be possible in these days to discover. But the fact is certain; and wherever a general knowledge and sensibility have prevailed among the people, arbitrary government and every kind of oppression have lessened and disappeared in proportion. Man has certainly an exalted soul; and the same principle in human nature, -- that aspiring, noble principle founded in benevolence, and cherished by knowledge; I mean the love of power, which has been so often the cause of slavery, -- has, whenever freedom has existed, been the cause of freedom. If it is this principle that has always prompted the princes and nobles of the earth, by every species of fraud and violence to shake off all the limitations of their power, it is the same that has always stimulated the common people to aspire at independency, and to endeavor at confining the power of the great within the limits of equity and reason.

The poor people, it is true, have been much less successful than the great. They have seldom found either leisure or opportunity to form a union and exert their strength; ignorant as they were of arts and letters, they have seldom been able to frame and support a regular opposition. This, however, has been known by the great to be the temper of mankind; and they have accordingly labored, in all ages, to wrest from the populace, as they are contemptuously called, the knowledge of their rights and wrongs, and the power to assert the former or redress the latter. I say RIGHTS, for such they have, undoubtedly, antecedent to all earthly government, -- Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws -- Rights, derived from the great Legislator of the universe.

Since the promulgation of Christianity, the two greatest systems of tyranny that have sprung from this original, are the canon and the feudal law. The desire of dominion, that great principle by which we have attempted to account for so much good and so much evil, is, when properly restrained, a very useful and noble movement in the human mind. But when such restraints are taken off, it becomes an encroaching, grasping, restless, and ungovernable power. Numberless have been the systems of iniquity contrived by the great for the gratification of this passion in themselves; but in none of them were they ever more successful than in the invention and establishment of the canon and the feudal law.

By the former of these, the most refined, sublime, extensive, and astonishing constitution of policy that ever was conceived by the mind of man was framed by the Romish clergy for the aggrandisement of their own order. All the epithets I have here given to the Romish policy are just, and will be allowed to be so when it is considered, that they even persuaded mankind to believe, faithfully and undoubtingly, that God Almighty had entrusted them with the keys of heaven, whose gates they might open and close at pleasure; with a power of dispensation over all the rules and obligations of morality; with authority to license all sorts of sins and crimes; with a power of deposing princes and absolving subjects from allegiance; with a power of procuring or withholding the rain of heaven and the beams of the sun; with the management of earthquakes, pestilence, and famine; nay, with the mysterious, awful, incomprehensible power of creating out of bread and wine the flesh and blood of God himself. All these opinions they were enabled to spread and rivet among the people by reducing their minds to a state of sordid ignorance and staring timidity, and by infusing into them a religious horror of letters and knowledge. Thus was human nature chained fast for ages in a cruel, shameful, and deplorable servitude to him, and his subordinate tyrants, who, it was foretold, would exalt himself above all that was called God, and that was worshipped.

In the latter we find another system, similar in many respects to the former;1 which, although it was originally formed, perhaps, for the necessary defence of a barbarous people against the inroads and invasions of her neighboring nations, yet for the same purposes of tyranny, cruelty, and lust, which had dictated the canon law, it was soon adopted by almost all the princes of Europe, and wrought into the constitutions of their government. It was originally a code of laws for a vast army in a perpetual encampment. The general was invested with the sovereign propriety of all the lands within the territory. Of him, as his servants and vassals, the first rank of his great officers held the lands; and in the same manner the other subordinate officers held of them; and all ranks and degrees held their lands by a variety of duties and services, all tending to bind the chains the faster on every order of mankind. In this manner the common people were held together in herds and clans in a state of servile dependence on their lords, bound, even by the tenure of their lands, to follow them, whenever they commanded, to their wars, and in a state of total ignorance of every thing divine and human, excepting the use of arms and the culture of their lands.

1 Rob. Hist. ch. v. pp. 178-9, &c.
But another event still more calamitous to human liberty, was a wicked confederacy between the two systems of tyranny above described. It seems to have been even stipulated between them, that the temporal grandees should contribute every thing in their power to maintain the ascendency of the priesthood, and that the spiritual grandees in their turn, should employ their ascendency over the consciences of the people, in impressing on their minds a blind, implicit obedience to civil magistracy.
Thus, as long as this confederacy lasted, and the people were held in ignorance, liberty, and with her, knowledge and virtue too, seem to have deserted the earth, and one age of darkness succeeded another, till God in his benign providence raised up the champions who began and conducted the Reformation. From the time of the Reformation to the first settlement of America, knowledge gradually spread in Europe, but especially in England; and in proportion as that increased and spread among the people, ecclesiastical and civil tyranny, which I use as synonymous expressions for the canon and feudal laws, seem to have lost their strength and weight. The people grew more and more sensible of the wrong that was done them by these systems, more and more impatient under it, and determined at all hazards to rid themselves of it; till at last, under the execrable race of the Stuarts, the struggle between the people and the confederacy aforesaid of temporal and spiritual tyranny, became formidable, violent, and bloody.

It was this great struggle that peopled America. It was not religion alone, as is commonly supposed; but it was a love of universal liberty, and a hatred, a dread, a horror, of the infernal confederacy before described, that projected, conducted, and accomplished the settlement of America.

It was a resolution formed by a sensible people, -- I mean the Puritans, -- almost in despair. They had become intelligent in general, and many of them learned. For this fact, I have the testimony of Archbishop King himself, who observed of that people, that they were more intelligent and better read than even the members of the church, whom he censures warmly for that reason. This people had been so vexed and tortured by the powers of those days, for no other crime than their knowledge and their freedom of inquiry and examination, and they had so much reason to despair of deliverance from those miseries on that side the ocean, that they at last resolved to fly to the wilderness for refuge from the temporal and spiritual principalities and powers, and plagues and scourges of their native country.

After their arrival here, they began their settlement, and formed their plan, both of ecclesiastical and civil government, in direct opposition to the canon and the feudal systems. The leading men among them, both of the clergy and the laity, were men of sense and learning. To many of them the historians, orators, poets, and philosophers of Greece and Rome were quite familiar; and some of them have left libraries that are still in being, consisting chiefly of volumes in which the wisdom of the most enlightened ages and nations is deposited, -- written, however, in languages which their great-grandsons, though educated in European universities, can scarcely read.2

2 "I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in Providence for the illumination of the ignorant, and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."

Thus accomplished were many of the first planters in these colonies. It may be thought polite and fashionable by many modern fine gentlemen, perhaps, to deride the characters of these persons, as enthusiastical, superstitious, and republican. But such ridicule is founded in nothing but foppery and affectation, and is grossly injurious and false. Religious to some degree of enthusiasm it may be admitted they were; but this can be no peculiar derogation from their character; because it was at that time almost the universal character not only of England, but of Christendom. Had this, however, been otherwise, their enthusiasm, considering the principles on which it was founded and the ends to which it was directed, far from being a reproach to them, was greatly to their honor; for I believe it will be found universally true, that no great enterprise for the honor or happiness of mankind was ever achieved without a large mixture of that noble infirmity. Whatever imperfections may be justly ascribed to them, which, however, are as few as any mortals have discovered, their judgment in framing their policy was founded in wise, humane, and benevolent principles. It was founded in revelation and in reason too. It was consistent with the principles of the best and greatest and wisest legislators of antiquity. Tyranny in every form, shape, and appearance was their disdain and abhorrence; no fear of punishment, nor even of death itself in exquisite tortures, had been sufficient to conquer that steady, manly, pertinacious spirit with which they had opposed the tyrants of those days in church and state. They were very far from being enemies to monarchy; and they knew as well as any men, the just regard and honor that is due to the character of a dispenser of the mysteries of the gospel of grace. But they saw clearly, that popular powers must be placed as a guard, a control, a balance, to the powers of the monarch and the priest, in every government, or else it would soon become the man of sin, the whore of Babylon, the mystery of iniquity, a great and detestable system of fraud, violence, and usurpation. Their greatest concern seems to have been to establish a government of the church more consistent with the Scriptures, and a government of the state more agreeable to the dignity of human nature, than any they had seen in Europe, and to transmit such a government down to their posterity, with the means of securing and preserving it forever. To render the popular power in their new government as great and wise as their principles of theory, that is, as human nature and the Christian religion require it should be, they endeavored to remove from it as many of the feudal inequalities and dependencies as could be spared, consistently with the preservation of a mild limited monarchy. And in this they discovered the depth of their wisdom and the warmth of their friendship to human nature. But the first place is due to religion. They saw clearly, that of all the nonsense and delusion which had ever passed through the mind of man, none had ever been more extravagant than the notions of absolutions, indelible characters, uninterrupted successions, and the rest of those fantastical ideas, derived from the canon law, which had thrown such a glare of mystery, sanctity, reverence, and right reverend eminence and holiness, around the idea of a priest, as no mortal could deserve, and as always must, from the constitution of human nature, be dangerous in society. For this reason, they demolished the whole system of diocesan episcopacy; and, deriding, as all reasonable and impartial men must do, the ridiculous fancies of sanctified effluvia from episcopal fingers, they established sacerdotal ordination on the foundation of the Bible and common sense. This conduct at once imposed an obligation on the whole body of the clergy to industry, virtue, piety, and learning, and rendered that whole body infinitely more independent on the civil powers, in all respects, than they could be where they were formed into a scale of subordination, from a pope down to priests and friars and confessors, -- necessarily and essentially a sordid, stupid, and wretched herd, -- or than they could be in any other country, where an archbishop held the place of a universal bishop, and the vicars and curates that of the ignorant, dependent, miserable rabble aforesaid, -- and infinitely more sensible and learned than they could be in either. This subject has been seen in the same light by many illustrious patriots, who have lived in America since the days of our forefathers, and who have adored their memory for the same reason. And methinks there has not appeared in New England a stronger veneration for their memory, a more penetrating insight into the grounds and principles and spirit of their policy, nor a more earnest desire of perpetuating the blessings of it to posterity, than that fine institution of the late Chief Justice Dudley, of a lecture against popery, and on the validity of presbyterian ordination. This was certainly intended by that wise and excellent man, as an eternal memento of the wisdom and goodness of the very principles that settled America. But I must again return to the feudal law. The adventurers so often mentioned, had an utter contempt of all that dark ribaldry of hereditary, indefeasible right, -- the Lord's anointed, -- and the divine, miraculous original of government, with which the priesthood had enveloped the feudal monarch in clouds and mysteries, and from whence they had deduced the most mischievous of all doctrines, that of passive obedience and non-resistance. They knew that government was a plain, simple, intelligible thing, founded in nature and reason, and quite comprehensible by common sense. They detested all the base services and servile dependencies of the feudal system. They knew that no such unworthy dependencies took place in the ancient seats of liberty, the republics of Greece and Rome; and they thought all such slavish subordinations were equally inconsistent with the constitution of human nature and that religious liberty with which Jesus had made them free. This was certainly the opinion they had formed; and they were far from being singular or extravagant in thinking so. Many celebrated modern writers in Europe have espoused the same sentiments. Lord Kames, a Scottish writer of great reputation, whose authority in this case ought to have the more weight as his countrymen have not the most worthy ideas of liberty, speaking of the feudal law, says, -- "A constitution so contradictory to all the principles which govern mankind can never be brought about, one should imagine, but by foreign conquest or native usurpations." Rousseau, speaking of the same system, calls it, -- "That most iniquitous and absurd form of government by which human nature was so shamefully degraded." It would be easy to multiply authorities, but it must be needless; because, as the original of this form of government was among savages, as the spirit, of it is military and despotic, every writer who would allow the people to have any right to life or property or freedom more than the beasts of the field, and who was not hired or enlisted under arbitrary, lawless power, has been always willing to admit the feudal system to be inconsistent with liberty and the rights of mankind.

To have holden their lands allodially, or for every man to have been the sovereign lord and proprietor of the ground he occupied, would have constituted a government too nearly like a commonwealth. They were contented, therefore, to hold their lands of their king, as their sovereign lord; and to him they were willing to render homage, but to no mesne or subordinate lords; nor were they willing to submit to any of the baser services. In all this they were so strenuous, that they have even transmitted to their posterity a very general contempt and detestation of holdings by quitrents, as they have also a hereditary ardor for liberty and thirst for knowledge.

They were convinced, by their knowledge of human nature, derived from history and their own experience, that nothing could preserve their posterity from the encroachments of the two systems of tyranny, in opposition to which, as has been observed already, they erected their government in church and state, but knowledge diffused generally through the whole body of the people. Their civil and religious principles, therefore, conspired to prompt them to use every measure and take every precaution in their power to propagate and perpetuate knowledge. For this purpose they laid very early the foundations of colleges, and invested them with ample privileges and emoluments; and it is remarkable that they have left among their posterity so universal an affection and veneration for those seminaries, and for liberal education, that the meanest of the people contribute cheerfully to the support and maintenance of them every year, and that nothing is more generally popular than projections for the honor, reputation, and advantage of those seats of learning. But the wisdom and benevolence of our fathers rested not here. They made an early provision by law, that every town consisting of so many families, should be always furnished with a grammar school. They made it a crime for such a town to be destitute of a grammar schoolmaster for a few months, and subjected it to a heavy penalty. So that the education of all ranks of people was made the care and expense of the public, in a manner that I believe has been unknown to any other people ancient or modern.

The consequences of these establishments we see and feel every day. A native of America who cannot read and write is as rare an appearance as a Jacobite or a Roman Catholic, that is, as rare as a comet or an earthquake. It has been observed, that we are all of us lawyers, divines, politicians, and philosophers. And I have good authorities to say, that all candid foreigners who have passed through this country, and conversed freely with all sorts of people here, will allow, that they have never seen so much knowledge and civility among the common people in any part of the world. It is true, there has been among us a party for some years, consisting chiefly not of the descendants of the first settlers of this country, but of high churchmen and high statesmen imported since, who affect to censure this provision for the education of our youth as a needless expense, and an imposition upon the rich in favor of the poor, and as an institution productive of idleness and vain speculation among the people, whose time and attention, it is said, ought to be devoted to labor, and not to public affairs, or to examination into the conduct of their superiors. And certain officers of the crown, and certain other missionaries of ignorance, foppery, servility, and slavery, have been most inclined to countenance and increase the same party. Be it remembered, however, that liberty must at all hazards be supported. We have a right to it, derived from our Maker. But if we had not, our fathers have earned and bought it for us, at the expense of their ease, their estates, their pleasure, and their blood. And liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. Rulers are no more than attorneys, agents, and trustees for the people; and if the cause, the interest and trust, is insidiously betrayed, or wantonly trifled away, the people have a right to revoke the authority that they themselves have deputed, and to constitute abler and better agents, attorneys, and trustees. And the preservation of the means of knowledge among the lowest ranks, is of more importance to the public than all the property of all the rich men in the country. It is even of more consequence to the rich themselves, and to their posterity. The only question is, whether it is a public emolument; and if it is, the rich ought undoubtedly to contribute, in the same proportion as to all other public burdens, -- that is, in proportion to their wealth, which is secured by public expenses. But none of the means of information are more sacred, or have been cherished with more tenderness and care by the settlers of America, than the press. Care has been taken that the art of printing should be encouraged, and that it should be easy and cheap and safe for any person to communicate his thoughts to the public. And you, Messieurs printers,3 whatever the tyrants of the earth may say of your paper, have done important service to your country by your readiness and freedom in publishing the speculations of the curious. The stale, impudent insinuations of slander and sedition, with which the gormandizers of power have endeavored to discredit your paper, are so much the more to your honor; for the jaws of power are always opened to devour, and her arm is always stretched out, if possible, to destroy the freedom of thinking, speaking, and writing. And if the public interest, liberty, and happiness have been in danger from the ambition or avarice of any great man, whatever may be his politeness, address, learning, ingenuity, and, in other respects, integrity and humanity, you have done yourselves honor and your country service by publishing and pointing out that avarice and ambition. These vices are so much the more dangerous and pernicious for the virtues with which they may be accompanied in the same character, and with so much the more watchful jealousy to be guarded against.

4 Edes and Gill, printers of the Boston Gazette.

"Curse on such virtues, they've undone their country."

Be not intimidated, therefore, by any terrors, from publishing with the utmost freedom, whatever can be warranted by the laws of your country; nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberty by any pretences of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery, and cowardice. Much less, I presume, will you be discouraged by any pretences that malignants on this side the water will represent your paper as factious and seditious, or that the great on the other side the water will take offence at them. This dread of representation has had for a long time, in this province, effects very similar to what the physicians call a hydropho, or dread of water. It has made us delirious; and we have rushed headlong into the water, till we are almost drowned, out of simple or phrensical fear of it. Believe me, the character of this country has suffered more in Britain by the pusillanimity with which we have borne many insults and indignities from the creatures of power at home and the creatures of those creatures here, than it ever did or ever will by the freedom and spirit that has been or will be discovered in writing or action. Believe me, my countrymen, they have imbibed an opinion on the other side the water, that we are an ignorant, a timid, and a stupid people; nay, their tools on this side have often the impudence to dispute your bravery. But I hope in God the time is near at hand when they will be fully convinced of your understanding, integrity and courage. But can any thing be more ridiculous, were it not too provoking to be laughed at, than to pretend that offence should be taken at home for writings here? Pray, let them look at home. Is not the human understanding exhausted there? Are not reason, imagination, wit, passion, senses, and all, tortured to find out satire and invective against the characters of the vile and futile fellows who sometimes get into place and power? The most exceptionable paper that ever I saw here is perfect prudence and modesty in comparison of multitudes of their applauded writings. Yet the high regard they have for the freedom of the press, indulges all. I must and will repeat it, your paper deserves the patronage of every friend to his country. And whether the defamers of it are arrayed in robes of scarlet or sable, whether they lurk and skulk in an insurance office, whether they assume the venerable character of a priest, the sly one of a scrivener, or the dirty, infamous, abandoned one of an informer, they are all the creatures and tools of the lust of domination.

The true source of our sufferings has been our timidity.

We have been afraid to think. We have felt a reluctance to examining into the grounds of our privileges, and the extent in which we have an indisputable right to demand them, against all the power and authority on earth. And many who have not scrupled to examine for themselves, have yet for certain prudent reasons been cautious and diffident of declaring the result of their inquiries.

The cause of this timidity is perhaps hereditary, and to be traced back in history as far as the cruel treatment the first settlers of this country received, before their embarkation for America, from the government at home. Everybody knows how dangerous it was to speak or write in favor of any thing, in those days, but the triumphant system of religion and politics. And our fathers were particularly the objects of the persecutions and proscriptions of the times. It is not unlikely, therefore, that although they were inflexibly steady in refusing their positive assent to any thing against their principles, they might have contracted habits of reserve, and a cautious diffidence of asserting their opinions publicly. These habits they probably brought with them to America, and have transmitted down to us. Or we may possibly account for this appearance by the great affection and veneration Americans have always entertained for the country from whence they sprang; or by the quiet temper for which they have been remarkable, no country having been less disposed to discontent than this; or by a sense they have that it is their duty to acquiesce under the administration of government, even when in many smaller matters grievous to them, and until the essentials of the great compact are destroyed or invaded. These peculiar causes might operate upon them; but without these, we all know that human nature itself, from indolence, modesty, humanity, or fear, has always too much reluctance to a manly assertion of its rights. Hence, perhaps, it has happened, that nine tenths of the species are groaning and gasping in misery and servitude.

But whatever the cause has been, the fact is certain, we have been excessively cautious of giving offence by complaining of grievances. And it is as certain, that American governors, and their friends, and all the crown officers, have availed themselves of this disposition in the people. They have prevailed on us to consent to many things which were grossly injurious to us, and to surrender many others, with voluntary tameness, to which we had the clearest right. Have we not been treated, formerly, with abominable insolence, by officers of the navy? I mean no insinuation against any gentleman now on this station, having heard no complaint of any one of them to his dishonor. Have not some generals from England treated us like servants, nay, more like slaves than like Britons? Have we not been under the most ignominious contribution, the most abject submission, the most supercilious insults, of some custom-house officers? Have we not been trifled with, brow-beaten, and trampled on, by former governors, in a manner which no king of England since James the Second has dared to indulge towards his subjects? Have we not raised up one family, in them placed an unlimited confidence, and been soothed and flattered and intimidated by their influence, into a great part of this infamous tameness and submission? "These are serious and alarming questions, and deserve a dispassionate consideration."

This disposition has been the great wheel and the mainspring in the American machine of court politics. We have been told that "the word rights is an offensive expression;" "that the king, his ministry, and parliament, will not endure to hear Americans talk of their rights;" "that Britain is the mother and we the children, that a filial duty and submission is due from us to her," and that "we ought to doubt our own judgment, and presume that she is right, even when she seems to us to shake the foundations of government;" that "Britain is immensely rich and great and powerful, has fleets and armies at her command which have been the dread and terror of the universe, and that she will force her own judgment into execution, right or wrong." But let me entreat you, sir, to pause. Do you consider yourself as a missionary of loyalty or of rebellion? Are you not representing your king, his ministry, and parliament, as tyrants, -- imperious, unrelenting tyrants, -- by such reasoning as this? Is not this representing your most gracious sovereign as endeavoring to destroy the foundations of his own throne? Are you not representing every member of parliament as renouncing the transactions at Runing Mede, (the meadow, near Windsor, where Magna Charta was signed;) and as repealing in effect the bill of rights, when the Lords and Commons asserted and vindicated the rights of the people and their own rights, and insisted on the king's assent to that assertion and vindication? Do you not represent them as forgetting that the prince of Orange was created King William, by the people, on purpose that their rights might be eternal and inviolable? Is there not something extremely fallacious in the common-place images of mother country and children colonies? Are we the children of Great Britain any more than the cities of London, Exeter, and Bath? Are we not brethren and fellow subjects with those in Britain, only under a somewhat different method of legislation, and a totally different method of taxation? But admitting we are children, have not children a right to complain when their parents are attempting to break their limbs, to administer poison, or to sell them to enemies for slaves? Let me entreat you to consider, will the mother be pleased when you represent her as deaf to the cries of her children, -- when you compare her to the infamous miscreant who lately stood on the gallows for starving her child, -- when you resemble her to Lady Macbeth in Shakespeare, (I cannot think of it without horror,) who
"Had given suck, and knew
How tender 't was to love the babe that milked her,"
but yet, who could
"Even while 't was smiling in her face,Have plucked her nipple from the boneless gums, And dashed the brains out."

Let us banish for ever from our minds, my countrymen, all such unworthy ideas of the king, his ministry, and parliament. Let us not suppose that all are become luxurious, effeminate, and unreasonable, on the other side the water, as many designing persons would insinuate. Let us presume, what is in fact true, that the spirit of liberty is as ardent as ever among the body of the nation, though a few individuals may be corrupted. Let us take it for granted, that the same great spirit which once gave CÊsar so warm a reception, which denounced hostilities against John till Magna Charta was signed, which severed the head of Charles the First from his body, and drove James the Second from his kingdom, the same great spirit (may heaven preserve it till the earth shall be no more) which first seated the great grandfather of his present most gracious majesty on the throne of Britain, -- is still alive and active and warm in England; and that the same spirit in America, instead of provoking the inhabitants of that country, will endear us to them for ever, and secure their good-will.

This spirit, however, without knowledge, would be little better than a brutal rage. Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. Let every order and degree among the people rouse their attention and animate their resolution. Let them all become attentive to the grounds and principles of government, ecclesiastical and civil. Let us study the law of nature; search into the spirit of the British constitution; read the histories of ancient ages; contemplate the great examples of Greece and Rome; set before us the conduct of our own British ancestors, who have defended for us the inherent rights of mankind against foreign and domestic tyrants and usurpers, against arbitrary kings and cruel priests, in short, against the gates of earth and hell. Let us read and recollect and impress upon our souls the views and ends of our own more immediate forefathers, in exchanging their native country for a dreary, inhospitable wilderness. Let us examine into the nature of that power, and the cruelty of that oppression, which drove them from their homes. Recollect their amazing fortitude, their bitter sufferings, -- the hunger, the nakedness, the cold, which they patiently endured, -- the severe labors of clearing their grounds, building their houses, raising their provisions, amidst dangers from wild beasts and savage men, before they had time or money or materials for commerce. Recollect the civil and religious principles and hopes and expectations which constantly supported and carried them through all hardships with patience and resignation. Let us recollect it was liberty, the hope of liberty for themselves and us and ours, which conquered all discouragements, dangers, and trials. In such researches as these, let us all in our several departments cheerfully engage, -- but especially the proper patrons and supporters of law, learning, and religion!

Let the pulpit resound with the doctrines and sentiments of religious liberty. Let us hear the danger of thraldom to our consciences from ignorance, extreme poverty, and dependence, in short, from civil and political slavery. Let us see delineated before us the true map of man. Let us hear the dignity of his nature, and the noble rank he holds among the works of God, -- that consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust, as offensive in the sight of God as it is derogatory from our own honor or interest or happiness, -- and that God Almighty has promulgated from heaven, liberty, peace, and good-will to man!

Let the bar proclaim, "the laws, the rights, the generous plan of power" delivered down from remote antiquity, -- inform the world of the mighty struggles and numberless sacrifices made by our ancestors in defence of freedom. Let it be known, that British liberties are not the grants of princes or parliaments, but original rights, conditions of original contracts, coequal with prerogative, and coeval with government; that many of our rights are inherent and essential, agreed on as maxims, and established as preliminaries, even before a parliament existed. Let them search for the foundations of British laws and government in the frame of human nature, in the constitution of the intellectual and moral world. There let us see that truth, liberty, justice, and benevolence, are its everlasting basis; and if these could be removed, the superstructure is overthrown of course.

Let the colleges join their harmony in the same delightful concert. Let every declamation turn upon the beauty of liberty and virtue, and the deformity, turpitude, and malignity, of slavery and vice. Let the public disputations become researches into the grounds and nature and ends of government, and the means of preserving the good and demolishing the evil. Let the dialogues, and all the exercises, become the instruments of impressing on the tender mind, and of spreading and distributing far and wide, the ideas of right and the sensations of freedom.

In a word, let every sluice of knowledge be opened and set a-flowing. The encroachments upon liberty in the reigns of the first James and the first Charles, by turning the general attention of learned men to government, are said to have produced the greatest number of consummate statesmen which has ever been seen in any age or nation. The Brookes, Hampdens, Vanes, Seldens, Miltons, Nedhams, Harringtons, Nevilles, Sidneys, Lockes, are all said to have owed their eminence in political knowledge to the tyrannies of those reigns. The prospect now before us in America, ought in the same manner to engage the attention of every man of learning, to matters of power and of right, that we may be neither led nor driven blindfolded to irretrievable destruction. Nothing less than this seems to have been meditated for us, by somebody or other in Great Britain. There seems to be a direct and formal design on foot, to enslave all America. This, however, must be done by degrees. The first step that is intended, seems to be an entire subversion of the whole system of our fathers, by the introduction of the canon and feudal law into America. The canon and feudal systems, though greatly mutilated in England, are not yet destroyed. Like the temples and palaces in which the great contrivers of them once worshipped and inhabited, they exist in ruins; and much of the domineering spirit of them still remains. The designs and labors of a certain society, to introduce the former of them into America, have been well exposed to the public by a writer of great abilities; and the further attempts to the same purpose, that may be made by that society, or by the ministry or parliament, I leave to the conjectures of the thoughtful. But it seems very manifest from the Stamp Act itself, that a design is formed to strip us in a great measure of the means of knowledge, by loading the press, the colleges, and even an almanack and a newspaper, with restraints and duties; and to introduce the inequalities and dependencies of the feudal system, by taking from the poorer sort of people all their little subsistence, and conferring it on a set of stamp officers, distributors, and their deputies. But I must proceed no further at present. The sequel, whenever I shall find health and leisure to pursue it, will be a "disquisition of the policy of the stamp act." In the mean time, however, let me add, -- These are not the vapors of a melancholy mind, nor the effusions of envy, disappointed ambition, nor of a spirit of opposition to government, but the emanations of a heart that burns for its country's welfare. No one of any feeling, born and educated in this once happy country, can consider the numerous distresses, the gross indignities, the barbarous ignorance, the haughty usurpations, that we have reason to fear are meditating for ourselves, our children, our neighbors, in short, for all our countrymen and all their posterity, without the utmost agonies of heart and many tears.

American Independence was Achieved Upon the Principles of Christianity
John Adams


Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors.

Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.

Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame.

Source: John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28th, 1813, from Quincy. The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The
Complete Correspondence Between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail and John Adams, edited by Lester J. Cappon,

1988, the University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC, pp. 338-340.

First, that the blood of so many hundred thousand souls of Protestants and Papists, spilt in the wars of present and former ages, for their respective consciences, is not required nor accepted by Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace.

Secondly, pregnant scriptures and arguments are throughout the work proposed against the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience.

Thirdly, satisfactory answers are given to scriptures, and objections produced by Mr. Calvin, Beza, Mr. Cotton, and the ministers of the New English churches and others former and later, tending to prove the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience.

Fourthly, the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience is proved guilty of all the blood of the souls crying for vengeance under the altar.

Fifthly, all civil states with their officers of justice in their respective constitutions and administrations are proved essentially civil, and therefore not judges, governors, or defenders of the spiritual or Christian state and worship.

Sixthly, it is the will and command of God that (since the coming of his Son the Lord Jesus) a permission of the most paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or antichristian consciences and worships, be granted to all men in all nations and countries; and they are only to be fought against with that sword which is only (in soul matters) able to conquer, to wit, the sword of God's Spirit, the Word of God.

Seventhly, the state of the Land of Israel, the kings and people thereof in peace and war, is proved figurative and ceremonial, and no pattern nor precedent for any kingdom or civil state in the world to follow.

Eighthly, God requireth not a uniformity of religion to be enacted and enforced in any civil state; which enforced uniformity (sooner or later) is the greatest occasion of civil war, ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and destruction of millions of souls.

Ninthly, in holding an enforced uniformity of religion in a civil state, we must necessarily disclaim our desires and hopes of the Jew's conversion to Christ.

Tenthly, an enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh.

Eleventhly, the permission of other consciences and worships than a state professeth only can (according to God) procure a firm and lasting peace (good assurance being taken according to the wisdom of the civil state for uniformity of civil obedience from all forts).

Twelfthly, lastly, true civility and Christianity may both flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding the permission of divers and contrary consciences, either of Jew or Gentile....

TRUTH. I acknowledge that to molest any person, Jew or Gentile, for either professing doctrine, or practicing worship merely religious or spiritual, it is to persecute him, and such a person (whatever his doctrine or practice be, true or false) suffereth persecution for conscience.

But withal I desire it may be well observed that this distinction is not full and complete: for beside this that a man may be persecuted because he holds or practices what he believes in conscience to be a truth (as Daniel did, for which he was cast into the lions' den, Dan. 6), and many thousands of Christians, because they durst not cease to preach and practice what they believed was by God commanded, as the Apostles answered (Acts 4 & 5), I say besides this a man may also be persecuted, because he dares not be constrained to yield obedience to such doctrines and worships as are by men invented and appointed....

Dear TRUTH, I have two sad complaints:

First, the most sober of the witnesses, that dare to plead thy cause, how are they charged to be mine enemies, contentious, turbulent, seditious?

Secondly, thine enemies, though they speak and rail against thee, though they outrageously pursue, imprison, banish, kill thy faithful witnesses, yet how is all vermilion'd o'er for justice against the heretics? Yea, if they kindle coals, and blow the flames of devouring wars, that leave neither spiritual nor civil state, but burn up branch and root, yet how do all pretend an holy war? He that kills, and he that's killed, they both cry out: "It is for God, and for their conscience."

'Tis true, nor one nor other seldom dare to plead the mighty Prince Christ Jesus for their author, yet (both Protestant and Papist) pretend they have spoke with Moses and the Prophets who all, say they (before Christ came), allowed such holy persecutions, holy wars against the enemies of holy church.

TRUTH. Dear PEACE (to ease thy first complaint), 'tis true, thy dearest sons, most like their mother, peacekeeping, peacemaking sons of God, have borne and still must bear the blurs of troublers of Israel, and turners of the world upside down. And 'tis true again, what Solomon once spake: "The beginning of strife is as when one letteth out water, therefore (saith he) leave off contention before it be meddled with. This caveat should keep the banks and sluices firm and strong, that strife, like a breach of waters, break not in upon the sons of men."

Yet strife must be distinguished: It is necessary or unnecessary, godly or Ungodly, Christian or unchristian, etc.

It is unnecessary, unlawful, dishonorable, ungodly, unchristian, in most cases in the world, for there is a possibility of keeping sweet peace in most cases, and, if it be possible, it is the express command of God that peace be kept (Rom. 13).

Again, it is necessary, honorable, godly, etc., with civil and earthly weapons to defend the innocent and to rescue the oppressed from the violent paws and jaws of oppressing persecuting Nimrods 2 (Psal. 73; Job 29).

It is as necessary, yea more honorable, godly, and Christian, to fight the fight of faith, with religious and spiritual artillery, and to contend earnestly for the faith of Jesus, once delivered to the saints against all opposers, and the gates of earth and hell, men or devils, yea against Paul himself, or an angel from heaven, if he bring any other faith or doctrine....

PEACE. I add that a civil sword (as woeful experience in all ages has proved) is so far from bringing or helping forward an opposite in religion to repentance that magistrates sin grievously against the work of God and blood of souls by such proceedings. Because as (commonly) the sufferings of false and antichristian teachers harden their followers, who being blind, by this means are occasioned to tumble into the ditch of hell after their blind leaders, with more inflamed zeal of lying confidence. So, secondly, violence and a sword of steel begets such an impression in the sufferers that certainly they conclude (as indeed that religion cannot be true which needs such instruments of violence to uphold it so) that persecutors are far from soft and gentle commiseration of the blindness of others....

For (to keep to the similitude which the Spirit useth, for instance) to batter down a stronghold, high wall, fort, tower, or castle, men bring not a first and second admonition, and after obstinacy, excommunication, which are spiritual weapons concerning them that be in the church: nor exhortation to repent and be baptized, to believe in the Lord Jesus, etc., which are proper weapons to them that be without, etc. But to take a stronghold, men bring cannons, culverins, saker, bullets, powder, muskets, swords, pikes, etc., and these to this end are weapons effectual and proportionable.

On the other side, to batter down idolatry, false worship, heresy, schism, blindness, hardness, out of the soul and spirit, it is vain, improper, and unsuitable to bring those weapons which are used by persecutors, stocks, whips, prisons, swords, gibbets, stakes, etc. (where these seem to prevail with some cities or kingdoms, a stronger force sets up again, what a weaker pull'd down), but against these spiritual strongholds in the souls of men, spiritual artillery and weapons are proper, which are mighty through God to subdue and bring under the very thought to obedience, or else to bind fast the soul with chains of darkness, and lock it up in the prison of unbelief and hardness to eternity....

PEACE. I pray descend now to the second evil which you observe in the answerer's position, viz., that it would be evil to tolerate notorious evildoers, seducing teachers, etc.

TRUTH. I say the evil is that he most improperly and confusedly joins and couples seducing teachers with scandalous livers.

PEACE. But is it not true that the world is full of seducing teachers, and is it not true that seducing teachers are notorious evildoers?

TRUTH. I answer, far be it from me to deny either, and yet in two things I shall discover the great evil of this joining and coupling seducing teachers, and scandalous livers as one adequate or proper object of the magistrate's care and work to suppress and punish.

First, it is not an homogeneal (as we speak) but an hetergeneal 3 commixture or joining together of things most different in kinds and natures, as if they were both of one consideration....

TRUTH. I answer, in granting with Brentius 4 that man hath not power to make laws to bind conscience, he overthrows such his tenent and practice as restrain men from their worship, according to their conscience and belief, and constrain them to such worships (though it be out of a pretense that they are convinced) which their own souls tell them they have no satisfaction nor faith in.

Secondly, whereas he affirms that men may make laws to see the laws of God observed.
I answer, God needeth not the help of a material sword of steel to assist the sword of the Spirit in the affairs of conscience, to those men, those magistrates, yea that commonwealth which makes such magistrates, must needs have power and authority from Christ Jesus to fit judge and to determine in all the great controversies concerning doctrine, discipline, government, etc.

And then I ask whether upon this ground it must not evidently follow that:
Either there is no lawful commonweal on earth nor civil state of men in the world, which is not qualified with this spiritual discerning (and then also that the very commonweal hath more light concerning the church of Christ than the church itself).

Or, that the commonweal and magistrates thereof must judge and punish as they are persuaded in their own belief and conscience (be their conscience paganish, Turkish, or antichristian) what is this but to confound heaven and earth together, and not only to take away the being of Christianity out of the world, but to take away all civility, and the world out of the world, and to lay all upon heaps of confusion? . ..

PEACE. The fourth head is the proper means of both these powers to attain their ends.

First, the proper means whereby the civil power may and should attain its end are only political, and principally these five.
First, the erecting and establishing what form of civil government may seem in wisdom most meet, according to general rules of the world, and state of the people.

Secondly, the making, publishing, and establishing of wholesome civil laws, not only such as concern civil justice, but also the free passage of true religion; for outward civil peace ariseth and is maintained from them both, from the latter as well as from the former.

Civil peace cannot stand entire, where religion is corrupted (2 Chron. 15. 3. 5. 6; and Judges 8). And yet such laws, though conversant about religion, may still be counted civil laws, as, on the contrary, an oath cloth still remain religious though conversant about civil matters.

Thirdly, election and appointment of civil officers to see execution to those laws.

Fourthly, civil punishments and rewards of transgressors and observers of these laws.

Fifthly, taking up arms against the enemies of civil peace.

Secondly, the means whereby the church may and should attain her ends are only ecclesiastical, which are chiefly five.

First, setting up that form of church government only of which Christ hath given them a pattern in his Word.

Secondly, acknowledging and admitting of no lawgiver in the church but Christ and the publishing of His laws.

Thirdly, electing and ordaining of such officers only, as Christ hath appointed in his Word.

Fourthly, to receive into their fellowship them that are approved and inflicting spiritual censures against them that o end.

Fifthly, prayer and patience in suffering any evil from them that be without, who disturb their peace.

So that magistrates, as magistrates, have no power of setting up the form of church government, electing church officers, punishing with church censures, but to see that the church does her duty herein. And on the other side, the churches as churches, have no power (though as members of the commonweal they may have power) of erecting or altering forms of civil government, electing of civil officers, inflicting civil punishments (no not on persons excommunicate) as by deposing magistrates from their civil authority, or withdrawing the hearts of the people against them, to their laws, no more than to discharge wives, or children, or servants, from due obedience to their husbands, parents, or masters; or by taking up arms against their magistrates, though he persecute them for conscience: for though members of churches who are public officers also of the civil state may suppress by force the violence of usurpers, as Iehoiada did Athaliah, yet this they do not as members of the church but as officers of the civil state.

TRUTH. Here are divers considerable passages which I shall briefly examine, so far as concerns our controversy.

First, whereas they say that the civil power may erect and establish what form of civil government may seem in wisdom most meet, I acknowledge the proposition to be most true, both in itself and also considered with the end of it, that a civil government is an ordinance of God, to conserve the civil peace of people, so far as concerns their bodies and goods, as formerly hath been said.

But from this grant I infer (as before hath been touched) that the sovereign, original, and foundation of civil power lies in the people (whom they must needs mean by the civil power distinct from the government set up). And, if so, that a people may erect and establish what form of government seems to them most meet for their civil condition; it is evident that such governments as are by them erected and established have no more power, nor for no longer time, than the civil power or people consenting and agreeing shall betrust them with. This is clear not only in reason but in the experience of all commonweals, where the people are not deprived of their natural freedom by the power of tyrants.

And, if so, that the magistrates receive their power of governing the church from the people, undeniably it follows that a people, as a people, naturally consider (of what nature or nation soever in Europe, Asia, Africa, or America), have fundamentally and originally, as men, a power to govern the church, to see her do her duty, to correct her, to redress, reform, establish, etc. And if this be not to pull God and Christ and Spirit out of heaven, and subject them unto natural, sinful, inconstant men, and so consequently to Satan himself, by whom all peoples naturally are guided, let heaven and earth judge....

PEACE. Some will here ask: What may the magistrate then lawfully do with his civil horn or power in matters of religion?

TRUTH. His horn not being the horn of that unicorn or rhinoceros, the power of the Lord Jesus in spiritual cases, his sword not the two-edged sword of the spirit, the word of God (hanging not about the loins or side, but at the lips. and proceeding out of the mouth of his ministers) but of an humane and civil nature and constitution, it must consequently be of a humane and civil operation, for who knows not that operation follows constitution; And therefore I shall end this passage with this consideration:

The civil magistrate either respecteth that religion and worship which his conscience is persuaded is true, and upon which he ventures his soul; or else that and those which he is persuaded are false.

Concerning the first, if that which the magistrate believeth to be true, be true, I say he owes a threefold duty unto it:

First, approbation and countenance, a reverent esteem and honorable testimony, according to Isa. 49, and Revel. 21, with a tender respect of truth, and the professors of it.

Secondly, personal submission of his own soul to the power of the Lord Jesus in that spiritual government and kingdom, according to Matt. 18 and 1 Cor. 5.

Thirdly, protection of such true professors of Christ, whether apart, or met together, as also of their estates from violence and injury, according to Rom. 13.

Now, secondly, if it be a false religion (unto which the civil magistrate dare not adjoin, yet) he owes:

First, permission (for approbation he owes not what is evil) and this according to Matthew 13. 30 for public peace and quiet's sake.

Secondly, he owes protection to the persons of his subjects (though of a false worship), that no injury be offered either to the persons or goods of any....

...The God of Peace, the God of Truth will shortly seal this truth, and confirm this witness, and make it evident to the whole world, that the doctrine of persecution for cause of conscience, is most evidently and lamentably contrary to the doctrine of Christ Jesus the Prince of Peace. Amen.

Groliers Encyclopedia

             In order to avoid wars and persecutions over religion, the founders of the
United States tried a bold experiment.  They allowed FREEDOM OF RELIGION by
separating church from state, so that one could be a full member of civil
society without having to belong to a particular church.  Colonies that had
established churches gradually ended that practice so that churches were no
longer built by the state, nor were their ministers paid by the state.  Churches
began to rely on the voluntary contributions of their members, which resulted in
more vigorous churches.
During the period of Communist rule in Eastern Europe, governments also
separated church from state, but instead of allowing a free choice of religion,
the states sought to discourage the practice of any religion whatsoever.

Quote from: forklift on Mon Mar 11, 2013 - 12:04:07
While there were many Christians that came to escape the religious persecution in England, most of the Founding Fathers were deists. While they believed in a divine creator, they didn't necessarily hold to Christianity. Obviously many of our societal customs have come from the Puritans and the Quakers. We owe the rapid expansion of our country as well as our rapid rise to superpower status to the Protestant work ethic. But to say that we were founded as a Christian nation is not entirely true. We were founded as a nation that would be tolerant to all religious beliefs. We found out very soon how long those lofty goals lasted. We love to scream from the mountaintops about how we have abandoned our Christian principles as as a society, but from the Salem witch trials of the Puritans to the Klan that came from the southern protestant churches, we pretty much started off throwing that Christian love out the window.

Well said forklift.

"No, while some were deists, they did believe the KJV Holy Bible was given by inspiration of God,

There were manuscript revisions of the 1611 KJV until the 1881 RV (Revised Version).

KJV Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself ?"

You are going off course from what the thread is dealing with.  The thread does not say: The U.S.A. was founded by the KJV believers!  I am a believer in the KJV, but, please stay with the thread.

RB

Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature.

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact.

Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains.

All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity.

As neither reason requires nor religion permits the contrary, every man living in or out of a state of civil society has a right peaceably and quietly to worship God according to the dictates of his conscience.

"Just and true liberty, equal and impartial liberty," in matters spiritual and temporal, is a thing that all men are clearly entitled to by the eternal and immutable laws of God and nature, [418]as well as by the law of nations and all well-grounded municipal laws, which must have their foundation in the former.

In regard to religion, mutual toleration in the different professions thereof is what all good and candid minds in all ages have ever practised, and, both by precept and example, inculcated on mankind. And it is now generally agreed among Christians that this spirit of toleration, in the fullest extent consistent with the being of civil society, is the chief characteristical mark of the Church. Insomuch that Mr. Locke has asserted and proved, beyond the possibility of contradiction on any solid ground, that such toleration ought to be extended to all whose doctrines are not subversive of society. The only sects which he thinks ought to be, and which by all wise laws are excluded from such toleration, are those who teach doctrines subversive of the civil government under which they live. The Roman Catholics or Papists are excluded by reason of such doctrines as these, that princes excommunicated may be deposed, and those that they call heretics may be destroyed without mercy; besides their recognizing the Pope in so absolute a manner, in subversion of government, by introducing, as far as possible into the states under whose protection they enjoy life, liberty, and property, that solecism in politics, imperium in imperio, leading directly to the worst anarchy and confusion, civil discord, war, and bloodshed.

The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole.
In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators.

In the last case, he must pay the referees for time and trouble. He should also be willing to pay his just quota for the support of government, the law, and the constitution; the end of which is to furnish indifferent and impartial judges in all cases that may happen, whether civil, ecclesiastical, marine, or military.

[419] The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule.

In the state of nature men may, as the patriarchs did, employ hired servants for the defence of their lives, liberties, and property; and they should pay them reasonable wages. Government was instituted for the purposes of common defence, and those who hold the reins of government have an equitable, natural right to an honorable support from the same principle that "the laborer is worthy of his hire." But then the same community which they serve ought to be the assessors of their pay. Governors have no right to seek and take what they please; by this, instead of being content with the station assigned them, that of honorable servants of the society, they would soon become absolute masters, despots, and tyrants. Hence, as a private man has a right to say what wages he will give in his private affairs, so has a community to determine what they will give and grant of their substance for the administration of public affairs. And, in both cases, more are ready to offer their service at the proposed and stipulated price than are able and willing to perform their duty.

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

II. The Rights of the Colonists as Christians.

These may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institutes of the great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament.

[420] By the act of the British Parliament, commonly called the Toleration Act, every subject in England, except Papists, &c., was restored to, and re-established in, his natural right to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience. And, by the charter of this Province, it is granted, ordained, and established (that is, declared as an original right) that there shall be liberty of conscience allowed in the worship of God to all Christians, except Papists, inhabiting, or which shall inhabit or be resident within, such Province or Territory. Magna Charta itself is in substance but a constrained declaration or proclamation and promulgation in the name of the King, Lords, and Commons, of the sense the latter had of their original, inherent, indefeasible natural rights, as also those of free citizens equally perdurable with the other. That great author, that great jurist, and even that court writer, Mr. Justice Blackstone, holds that this recognition was justly obtained of King John, sword in hand. And peradventure it must be one day, sword in hand, again rescued and preserved from total destruction and oblivion.

III. The Rights of the Colonists as Subjects.

A commonwealth or state is a body politic, or civil society of men, united together to promote their mutual safety and prosperity by means of their union.

The absolute rights of Englishmen and all freemen, in or out of civil society, are principally personal security, personal liberty, and private property.

All persons born in the British American Colonies are, by the laws of God and nature and by the common law of England, exclusive of all charters from the Crown, well entitled, and by acts of the British Parliament are declared to be entitled, to all the natural, essential, inherent, and inseparable rights, liberties, and privileges of subjects born in Great Britain or within the realm. Among those rights are the following, which no man, or body of men, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens, or members of society, can for themselves give up or take away from others.

[421] First, "The first fundamental, positive law of all common wealths or states is the establishing the legislative power. As the first fundamental natural law, also, which is to govern even the legislative power itself, is the preservation of the society."

Secondly, The Legislative has no right to absolute, arbitrary power over the lives and fortunes of the people; nor can mortals assume a prerogative not only too high for men, but for angels, and therefore reserved for the exercise of the Deity alone.

"The Legislative cannot justly assume to itself a power to rule by extempore arbitrary decrees; but it is bound to see that justice is dispensed, and that the rights of the subjects be decided by promulgated, standing, and known laws, and authorized independent judges"; that is, independent, as far as possible, of Prince and people. "There should be one rule of justice for rich and poor, for the favorite at court, and the countryman at the plough."

Thirdly, The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of his property, without his consent in person or by his representative.

These are some of the first principles of natural law and justice, and the great barriers of all free states and of the British Constitution in particular. It is utterly irreconcilable to these principles and to many other fundamental maxims of the common law, common sense, and reason that a British House of Commons should have a right at pleasure to give and grant the property of the Colonists. (That the Colonists are well entitled to all the essential rights, liberties, and privileges of men and freemen born in Britain is manifest not only from the Colony charters in general, but acts of the British Parliament.) The statute of the 13th of Geo. 2, C. 7, naturalizes even foreigners after seven years' residence. The words of the Massachusetts charter are these: "And further, our will and pleasure is, and we do hereby for us, our heirs, and successors, grant, establish, and ordain, that all and every of the subjects of us, our heirs, and successors, which shall go to, and inhabit within our said Province or Territory, and every of their children, which shall happen to be born there or on the seas in going thither or returning from thence, shall have and enjoy all liberties and immunities of free and natural subjects within any of the dominions [422]of us, our heirs, and successors, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever as if they and every one of them were born within this our realm of England."

Now what liberty can there be where property is taken away without consent? Can it be said with any color of truth and justice, that this continent of three thousand miles in length, and of a breadth as yet unexplored, in which, however, it is supposed there are five millions of people, has the least voice, vote, or influence in the British Parliament? Have they all together any more weight or power to return a single member to that House of Commons who have not inadvertently, but deliberately, assumed a power to dispose of their lives, liberties, and properties, than to choose an Emperor of China? Had the Colonists a right to return members to the British Parliament, it would only be hurtful; as, from their local situation and circumstances, it is impossible they should ever be truly and properly represented there. The inhabitants of this country, in all probability, in a few years, will be more numerous than those of Great Britain and Ireland together; yet it is absurdly expected by the promoters of the present measures that these, with their posterity to all generations, should be easy, while their property shall be disposed of by a House of Commons at three thousand miles' distance from them, and who cannot be supposed to have the least care or concern for their real interest; who have not only no natural care for their interest, but must be in effect bribed against it, as every burden they lay on the Colonists is so much saved or gained to themselves. Hitherto, many of the Colonists have been free from quit rents; but if the breath of a British House of Commons can originate an act for taking away all our money, our lands will go next, or be subject to rack rents from haughty and relentless landlords, who will ride at ease, while we are trodden in the dirt. The Colonists have been branded with the odious names of traitors and rebels only for complaining of their grievances. How long such treatment will or ought to be borne, is submitted.

Letter from the Danbury Baptists:

The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America

Sir,
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Association,

Neh,h Dodge }
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson }


Jefferson's Reply:

Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson

A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.
Washington, January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment 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, and 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 and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and 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 and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802

Quote from: makahiya on Fri Feb 15, 2013 - 13:27:03
While the U.S.A. was founded by Christians, today the U.S.A. is a pluralistic society.

At the theological level we are talking about eternity and final authority.

At the political level we are talking about time and temporal authority.

KJV Mark 12:17  And Jesus answering said unto them,
Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and to God the things that are God's.
And they marvelled at him.

If I am not mistaken many of the founding fathers were actually diests. Many were Free Mason's that spoke of the "Great Architect" in a diestic sense. Much of the U.S. framing documents were fashioned after Free Masonic traditions and lodge constitutions and belief systems. From what I have read the Christian foundation that is often spoken of does exist to some extent, but is greatly exaggerated.

Quote from: JonMJ33 on Thu Aug 27, 2015 - 08:19:04

Quote from: makahiya on Fri Feb 15, 2013 - 13:27:03
While the U.S.A. was founded by Christians, today the U.S.A. is a pluralistic society.

At the theological level we are talking about eternity and final authority.

At the political level we are talking about time and temporal authority.

KJV Mark 12:17  And Jesus answering said unto them,
Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and to God the things that are God's.


And they marvelled at him.

If I am not mistaken many of the founding fathers were actually diests. Many were Free Mason's that spoke of the "Great Architect" in a diestic sense. Much of the U.S. framing documents were fashioned after Free Masonic traditions and lodge constitutions and belief systems. From what I have read the Christian foundation that is often spoken of does exist to some extent, but is greatly exaggerated.

America was settled in a few locations by Christians wishing to escape European repression and live their lives without it.  In other locations settlements were established for commercial purposes.  Tobacco was the cash crop of the time and was the greatest export until the establishment of the cotton industry.  In Central and South America, European settlement was encouraged by the pilfering of gold from the native civilizations.  The natives were pressed into slavery which eventually became an industry all its own throughout the Caribbean and southern regions. 

"the United States has always been a nation of ongoing hustlers from the prisons and disaster areas of old Europe. I do not think that the American System in its present state of decadence is worth preserving. The initial success of the United States was largely accidental. A rich empty continent was exploited by rapacious Europeans who made slaves of Africans and corpses of Indians in the process."
- GORE VIDAL

The political basis of the government of the United States was initially based upon the issues of personal liberty established during the reformation in Europe.  Protestantism established the principle that each man was at liberty and responsible for his own study of the Bible and his own discernment of how God wanted him to live.  Individual liberty quickly spread to the desire for government to respect that wish.  It can truthfully be stated then that the American republic (it was never a democracy) was based upon the Christian desire for freedom from government meddling in personal lives and business. 

Unfortunately no democracy lasts more than two hundred years and on October 26, 2001 the congress of the United States de-ratified constitutional law.   Erosion of constitutional protections of the citizenry has proceeded apace since that time.  Today the United States is a fascist police state.

We have collectively demanded that God be left out of our social interactions, our government and to some extent our religion.  Therefore the government and people of the United States no longer represent either Christian principles, personal liberty or international law. 

"The US government is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today."
- Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.  1966

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Too many deny America is and always was a Christian nation (which decided on a secular government).

There is an extreme cultural difference between the founding fathers of the US and the leaders of this day, it was commonplace to believe in God in those days, people who did not believe were ostracised and outcast. The constitution was built upon political correctness, made manifest today.

Quote from: Alan on Sun May 15, 2016 - 17:07:55The constitution was built upon political correctness, made manifest today.

That's just not true.

PC came about from the communist ascendency after WWII. "Better red than dead" was a popular expression that appeared to oppose war but was really about subverting the quintessential American commitment and value to Liberty above all else, "Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death!"

The term itself may not have existed but the ideology certainly did, it has slowly crept up through the centuries and decades to be what it is today.

Quote from: makahiya on Wed Feb 20, 2013 - 11:58:27
KJV Bible Christians founded the U.S.A.

KJV Bible Christians founded Harvard, Yale and Princeton.

There were no manuscript revisions of the 1611 KJV until the 1881 RV (Revised Version).

Actually the pilgrims and the puritans preferred the Geneva Bible.

Quote from: makahiya on Fri Feb 15, 2013 - 13:27:03
While the U.S.A. was founded by Christians, today the U.S.A. is a pluralistic society.

At the theological level we are talking about eternity and final authority.

At the political level we are talking about time and temporal authority.

KJV Mark 12:17  And Jesus answering said unto them,
Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and to God the things that are God's.
And they marvelled at him.

Not only may America have been founded by Christians, but all of the Colonies, except Rhode Island had the 10 Commandments as one of their 'cores' in their laws.  Soon, however, even Rhode Island adopted the 10 commandments into their laws.

http://americanvision.org/1663/law-colonial-america/


Law in Colonial America[1]

"With the exception of Rhode Island, every early American colony incorporated the entire Decalogue into its own civil code of laws. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut declared that the Governor and his council of six elected officials would "have power to administer justice according to the laws here established; and for want thereof according to the rule of the word of God." Also in 1638, the Rhode Island government adopted "all those perfect and most absolute laws of His, given us in His holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby.

Commander-in-Chief George Washington issued numerous military orders during the American Revolution that first prohibited swearing and then ordered an attendance on Divine worship, thus relating the prohibition against profanity to a religious duty. Typical of these orders, on July 4, 1775, Washington declared:...."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess Mr. George Washington wanted a 'well regulated' militia...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From whence cometh all the good spiritual gifts?    Would you classify 'living' as a good spiritual gift? 

James 1:17
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."


Every good gift....  Every perfect gift....    EVERY.... 

Quote from: delade3 on Fri Dec 02, 2016 - 21:28:49

Quote from: makahiya on Fri Feb 15, 2013 - 13:27:03
While the U.S.A. was founded by Christians, today the U.S.A. is a pluralistic society.

At the theological level we are talking about eternity and final authority.

At the political level we are talking about time and temporal authority.

KJV Mark 12:17  And Jesus answering said unto them,
Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and to God the things that are God's.
And they marvelled at him.

Not only may America have been founded by Christians, but all of the Colonies, except Rhode Island had the 10 Commandments as one of their 'cores' in their laws.  Soon, however, even Rhode Island adopted the 10 commandments into their laws.

http://americanvision.org/1663/law-colonial-america/


Law in Colonial America[1]

"With the exception of Rhode Island, every early American colony incorporated the entire Decalogue into its own civil code of laws. The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut declared that the Governor and his council of six elected officials would "have power to administer justice according to the laws here established; and for want thereof according to the rule of the word of God." Also in 1638, the Rhode Island government adopted "all those perfect and most absolute laws of His, given us in His holy word of truth, to be guided and judged thereby.

Commander-in-Chief George Washington issued numerous military orders during the American Revolution that first prohibited swearing and then ordered an attendance on Divine worship, thus relating the prohibition against profanity to a religious duty. Typical of these orders, on July 4, 1775, Washington declared:...."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess Mr. George Washington wanted a 'well regulated' militia...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


From whence cometh all the good spiritual gifts?    Would you classify 'living' as a good spiritual gift? 

James 1:17
"Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning."


Every good gift....  Every perfect gift....    EVERY....

Since we know that this is true, then:  "Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?"  The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us."  Psalm 2:1-3


Why do the ones who have received the good gifts, the perfect gifts, use them to incite brothers against brothers; sisters against sisters, children against parents, parents against children; to turn them AWAY from the LORD; Who is the Granter of Every (All) Good Gifts and Every (All) Perfect Gifts? 


Don't I also have the God given right to receive God's Good and Perfect Gifts?


If certain persons want to 'horde' the Good and Perfect Gifts for themselves, which come down from God, would they benefit from some counseling and 'sharing' of thoughts and ideas, sessions? 

Quote from: makahiya on Fri Feb 15, 2013 - 13:27:03
While the U.S.A. was founded by Christians, today the U.S.A. is a pluralistic society.

At the theological level we are talking about eternity and final authority.

At the political level we are talking about time and temporal authority.

KJV Mark 12:17  And Jesus answering said unto them,
Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and to God the things that are God's.
And they marvelled at him.

Eternity and time are the same thing.....according to the Bible anyway.    There is only a hair's breadth between the two.   A veil of shadow is all that separates us from awareness of the King of Kings and His role in history.

The quote from Jesus was in response to those who were trying to either trip Him up on His words and ministry or trying to determine if He was indeed the militarist they expected.   Bear in mind the Jews had won their independence from the Greeks via leadership of the Macabees only to fall again under domination of another foreign power - Rome.   Those who conspired against Rome constantly hoped for a leader.   Was Jesus that leader?   They asked Him about paying taxes and His answer wasn't what they wanted or expected.   

Obey the law and pay your taxes.   That's it and that's all.

Jesus didn't "support the troops", "stand for the Roman anthem", or pretend to be a fanatical patriot.   He went about God's business paying taxes where due and obeying the law.   So should we......to a point.

"The propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a nation that disegards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven iself hath ordained."
- George Washington April 30, 1789 NYC (dedication of the nation)

The problem with America is that we have sinned against God so many times we aren't aware of individual wickedness.  Even in our pulpits its excused and swept under the carpet in the name of happy talk.  What happens when a nation sins against God?

One of the judgments against a sinful nation is the loss of freedom.   Americans are already losing ours and there is more oppression to come.

'There ought to be limits to freedom.'
--Presidential candidate George W. Bush in a press conference at the Texas State House, May 21, 1999

"The role of government is to rein in the rights of the people."
- Bill Clinton

Americans are losing their freedoms to such a degree that the current generation is not able to understand what it was like sixty or seventy years ago in America. 

It was good.

and that's me, hollering from the choir loft...

Quote from: forklift on Mon Mar 11, 2013 - 12:04:07While there were many Christians that came to escape the religious persecution in England, most of the Founding Fathers were deists.

That is simply not true.  That is what many atheists and most on the Left would like us to believe, but it is not true.  There is an excellent book by David Barton, Original Intent, The Courts, The Constitution and Religion.  Against the practices of so many who make the claim that you have made here, Barton has pursued the practice of best evidence; rather than citing "authorities" speaking about the Founding Fathers, Barton lets the Founders speak for themselves by citing the Founders own writings.  What the Founders own writings show us is that all but a very few were ardent and faithful believers in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God.

All would do well to get the book and read it because you have obviously believed the faulty historians who rather than document history always seem to rewrite history, particularly where Christianity and the Founding Fathers are being considered.

The enlightenment of God's word upon humanity was directly involved and a prominent aspect of the formation of our Constitution and government. It had been removed from the sight of humanity by a corrupted church and the corrupted elites who were constantly in bed with her. Who together formed the beast power which ruled the people during the dark ages of Europe and elsewhere. The struggle and war between God's true church and this beast power finally ended when God's word was once again given to humanity and freedom of thought, conscience, and intellect came about as a result of the same.

Ignorance, willing ignorance, and rejection of bible truth and these plain historical truths by most Americans and the world today, account for the continued crumbling of our nation and Constitution. The prophetic beast which first spoke like a lamb under the guiding influence of biblical Christianity in the footsteps of the Lamb of God Himself, is ever increasingly speaking and acting like the dragon. The power and influence of the corrupt church which withheld the scriptures from humanity during the dark ages is ever on the rise within this nation, the leader of the same recently politically advising our entire Congress. Our ever increasingly dragon like nation is ever increasingly making an image to the first beast under the direct oversight and influence of said corrupt church, BABYLON THE GREAT. So be it, let God's prophetic word be true as it always is.

Rev13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. 2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. 3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. 4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? 5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. 6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. 7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 9 If any man have an ear, let him hear. 10 He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints. 11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon. 12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed. 13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men, 14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live. 15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed. 16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: 17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name. 18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.

Quote from: makahiya on Fri Feb 15, 2013 - 13:27:03
While the U.S.A. was founded by Christians, today the U.S.A. is a pluralistic society.

At the theological level we are talking about eternity and final authority.

At the political level we are talking about time and temporal authority.

KJV Mark 12:17  And Jesus answering said unto them,
Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and to God the things that are God's.
And they marvelled at him.

"the United States has always been a nation of ongoing hustlers from the prisons and disaster areas of old Europe. I do not think that the American System in its present state of decadence is worth preserving. The initial success of the United States was largely accidental. A rich empty continent was exploited by rapacious Europeans who made slaves of Africans and corpses of Indians in the process." - GORE VIDAL

The tendency to exceptionalize America is no different from the same feeling expressed by people of other nations.  The difference is that, for the present at least, America enjoys the most powerful military on the planet.    That will change, however.   Signs are already in the wind.

Given that some of those who originally settled on American shores were interested only in being able to practice their religion and be left in peace, it is not a factor that continued for very long.

As soon as the colonies were able to arm themselves and field a respectable fighting force the wars began.   American history is replete with bloodshed and little else.  Every victory led to increasing financial and industrial power and every expansion led to greater consolidation of power in a central place - Washington DC.

Today American society is almost totally secularized.   Even the churches bow to the will of the government rather than that of the Almighty.  One is expected, for example, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance which is a personal vow of absolute support to the government.

There can only be one absolute allegiance in the lives of men and women.   Either it is allegiance to one's self, to the state or to God.

The Throne of Heaven only has room for one occupant.  It is NOT a bench for multiple entities.   Either God sits on it or someone or something else parks there.

Who sits on the throne of your life?    If its God, then you cannot proclaim absolute allegiance to the US government.   

Bottom line is that religious belief in America has been corrupted by the system and diluted by our own prosperity.    God is an after-thought and the attitude of most is passive indifference.

Is the Almighty pleased with this situation?   He is not.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft....

Quote from: Choir Loft on Tue Jul 30, 2019 - 15:26:06
"the United States has always been a nation of ongoing hustlers from the prisons and disaster areas of old Europe. I do not think that the American System in its present state of decadence is worth preserving. The initial success of the United States was largely accidental. A rich empty continent was exploited by rapacious Europeans who made slaves of Africans and corpses of Indians in the process." - GORE VIDAL

The tendency to exceptionalize America is no different from the same feeling expressed by people of other nations.  The difference is that, for the present at least, America enjoys the most powerful military on the planet.    That will change, however.   Signs are already in the wind.

Given that some of those who originally settled on American shores were interested only in being able to practice their religion and be left in peace, it is not a factor that continued for very long.

As soon as the colonies were able to arm themselves and field a respectable fighting force the wars began.   American history is replete with bloodshed and little else.  Every victory led to increasing financial and industrial power and every expansion led to greater consolidation of power in a central place - Washington DC.

Today American society is almost totally secularized.   Even the churches bow to the will of the government rather than that of the Almighty.  One is expected, for example, to recite the Pledge of Allegiance which is a personal vow of absolute support to the government.

There can only be one absolute allegiance in the lives of men and women.   Either it is allegiance to one's self, to the state or to God.

The Throne of Heaven only has room for one occupant.  It is NOT a bench for multiple entities.   Either God sits on it or someone or something else parks there.

Who sits on the throne of your life?    If its God, then you cannot proclaim absolute allegiance to the US government.   

Bottom line is that religious belief in America has been corrupted by the system and diluted by our own prosperity.    God is an after-thought and the attitude of most is passive indifference.

Is the Almighty pleased with this situation?   He is not.

that's me, hollering from the choir loft....

A truly ignorant and malicious post. Slavery ended in this country after an extremely bloody and violent war fought over important issues including slavery itself, it most certainly did not begin here. It existed all over the world for thousands of years, it ended here as it needed to according to our own founding principles and declaration.

QuoteIN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

If you think a bunch of hustlers and prisoners came up with the above declaration, then you are apparently a most ignorant individual. How this country was founded and was, and what it has become are two very different things. No doubt though, its deterioration was largely due to ignorance much like that you have promoted in your quoted post. People with little knowledge, concern, or practice in line with our declaration increasingly populated the land, and have brought us here we are today. Many of them no doubt would and do believe your most ignorant statement quoted. So be it.

Right on Amo.  And that is the same degradation and deterioration that is being perpetrated by the Left today.  It is the view of most if not all 20+ democrats vying for the Presidency of the United States and why none of them are fit to be considered for the job.  They are all in lock step with the disastrous view that Gore Vidal shared in the above quote.  It is solid Leftism; that political/economic philosophy that murdered millions upon millions in the last century and inflicted terrible misery upon even more.

True that. Ignorance and misinformation are the tools of their trade.