Cite the U.S. Constitution and Other Questions

Published On: June 15, 2012|Categories: MRFF's Inbox|0 Comments|

Accessibility Notice

This post was created on the previous version of the MRFF website, and may not be fully accessible to users of assistive technology. If you need help accessing this content, please reach out via email.

From: (name withheld)
Subject: Cite the US Constitution And Other Questions
Date: June 15, 2012 7:52:15 AM MDT

I just heard of your organization over a headline. Since your organization spews the leftist line “Seperation of Church and State”. Can your organization cite the Amendment or Article directly from the United States Constitution where you find those exact words?

Another thing I noticed is your leftist label of FUNDAMENTALIST to describe believers in Christ. Why is that?

I also saw your issue with a Marine Fighter Squadron called the Crusaders. That unit was called the Crusaders from 1959 to 2008. Where was your organization then during that time frame? So now you worry about Islamic feelings.

Oh wait did the Islamists feel for the people they murdered when they bombed the US Marines barracks amd the US Embassy in Beruit 1983, the World Trade Center 1993, the Khobar Towers murdering Air Force personnell in 1996, the USS COLE murdering US Navy Sailors in 2000, 9-11, US Embassy bombed in Yemen 2008, the US Army recuriter killed in Tennessee in 2010 by a convert to Islam, the Ex-US Army Major Nadal Hassan screaming ALLAH AKBAR while slaughtering defenseless civilians and soldiers at Ft Hood Texas in 2010.

Recpectively yours,

Charles Schaeffer

Christian, Veteran, Veteran of a Foreign War, Disabled Veteran

RESPONSE FROM MRFF VOLUNTEER:

Dear (name withheld),

First, thanks for your service, and your letter expressing your concerns. Mr. Weinstein tries to answer as many letters as possible personally, but is of course quite busy handling this and other cases. He thought it appropriate that I respond here as I am a physically challenged combat veteran.

Please allow me to attempt to answer your questions. First, however, please let me give you some personal background by way of introduction, and some information on the MRFF to clear up your obvious misconceptions.

My family has a long history of US service, which includes 5 generations of Marines, as well as the other branches. My thrice-great grandfather fought in the Revolution and my great-grandfather fought in the Civil War (66th OVI). We also had representatives in WW I, WW II, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf I and the GWOT, as well as most of the smaller wars and conflicts.

My own service included close personal ground combat in several of the major operations in Vietnam in 1967 and 19 68, including Operation Scotland (Khe Sanh), before, during, and after the Tet 1968 assault and the Siege, and in the Hue-Phu Bai area both before and after Tet 1968.

I later lost a limb which unfortunately ended my active career, but I subsequently went on to teach in the USMC Jr. ROTC program for several years, before using my GI Bill to attain a BA (history) and later a Master’s degree and teaching credential, after which I taught K-12 and Adult education at a number of levels in public and private schools, including at-risk inner city, and in the Neglected and Ab used home, and Juvenile Hall, and later, incarcerated adults in medium and high-security jails.

My story is not unusual. Most of the MRFF clients and volunteers are veterans, often from multi-generational families, and include active, reserve, and retired, from all branches of the US Armed Forces, holding ranks from enlisted through flag officer, with MOSs in all fields, including combat arms, representing eras from WW II, Korea, Viet Nam, on through Gulf I, and the present GWOT.

MRFF members’ awards and decorations are numerous, and include the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star w/ V, the Silver Star, the Army, Navy, and AF Crosses, and one Medal of Honor.

Mr. Weinstein is also a veteran, being an Honor Graduate of the USAF Academy, and served for 10 years a JAG officer, including service in the Reagan White House as a Special Counsel. His family has over three generations of service that include distinguished service academy graduates, and members of the US Armed Forces. His nephew (a Christian) is a GYSGT in the USMC in a Combat Arms MOS, who recently returned from another tour in the Sand Box. He is also a member of and supporter of the MRFF.

I think you might agree that we are all very familiar with the nature of the military services.

We are also very familiar with the Constitution, which is the focus of our mission. The MRFF supports the Constitutionally and legally mandated requirement that there will be no established religion (i.e. no official state religion), and no religious test for office, as clearly intended by the Founders both in their words and documents, and as supported by subsequent decisions of US courts through the Supreme Court.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ” (1st Amendment)

“. . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” (Article VI, Section III)

The MRFF is committed to ensuring that this boundary between church and state is maintained, and that the Constitutional rights to freedom of conscience for all Americans (particularly our servicemen and women) are not violated, and that they are not subjected to unwanted proselytization by any religious group whatsoever.

MRFF’s Position on Faith

Neither Mr. Weinstein nor the MRFF are “for” or “against” Christianity, Islam, Judaism, or any other religion. On the contrary, as the name implies, the MRFF supports religious freedom and pluralism for service personnel of all faiths (or none), in accordance with the US Constitution and public law. Our founder, members, and supporters include people of many different faiths and belief systems, as well as free-thinkers and skeptics.

Mr. Weinstein, the founder of the MRFF, is of Jewish heritage, and his family circle of blended faiths includes observant Christians.

The MRFF staff is approximately 75% Christian (mainly Protestant, followed by Catholics), 15% Jewish, and 10% other.

While we have people of faith among us, we are (like the US itself) secular in nature, and we defend all US service personnel against violations of their Constitutional rights to freedom of conscience.

Who MRFF Represents, and Why

All MRFF cases are filed because of complaints brought by active duty, reserve, or retired service personnel or employees of DoD or other military agencies.

Currently, 96% of the over 28,000 MRFF cases are brought on behalf of professing Christians, (mainly Protestants), followed by Catholics (including Roman and Eastern Orthodox).

The 4% balance of cases includes Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and Sikhs, as well as Pagans, a few atheists, agnostics, and other free-thinkers.

The great preponderance of our cases involve abuses of authority and violations of the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of conscience by a specific sub-set of aggressive radicals who style themselves “Christians” and who are becoming increasingly entrenched and powerful in the military in all braches and MOSs at ranks up to and including flag officer ranks. They are known by a number of names, but we use the generic term of one of the main branches (“Dominionists”) for convenience. I attach some specifics re: Dominionism below.

Now as to your specific questions:

Placing a US Armed forces, DoD, or Pentagon crest (or that of any other branch of the military or government) is a CLEAR violation of the First Amendment, in that it wrongly implies government or military sponsorship of religion. US law and judicial decisions have expressly forbade any such show of “favoritism, preference, or elevation of any religion.”

This also pertains to the Crusader squadron logo. Our position on this name-change is that it is un-Constitutional and unnecessary. The squadron was commissioned on 1 March 1942 at Camp Kearny, CA. Originally known as the “Candystripers” the squadron quickly adopted the “Werewolves” moniker before embarking on its first combat tour. They flew through WW II and Korea under that nickname.

It wasn’t until 1958, with the adoption of the Chance-Vought F8U-1’s (F-8A) “Crusader” that the squadron acquired the nick-name. A new patch was designed to go with the new aircraft, and in 1959, LT Desmond F. Browne procured the “Mach- Altus I” mascot in a second hand shop in lower Manhattan.

However, the “Crusaders” saw no combat until 1 September 1967, when they were flying sorties in Vietnam. They retained the “Crusaders” handle even though they had by this time transitioned to the new F-4B “Phantom” and been re-designated a VMFA sq uadron.

Following Vietnam, they flew a number of aircraft, none of which were named “Crusader” and didn’t fly again in combat until forty years later — when they deployed as the “Werewolves” again.

Therefore, of their entire history, they were “Candystripers” and “Werewolves” for the first 16 years, during which period they flew their most distinguished combat sorties under their most famous leaders. During their “Crusaders” incarnation, they flew only four years in combat (albeit valiantly), and were not in combat again until 2008 — at which time they re-adopted their original moniker of “Werewolves” under which they flew until their return.

Therefore, of the 12 years of its combat history, only four were flown under the Crusader nickname — and NONE of the combat years were flown in the aircraft that gave rise to the Crusader nick-name in the first place.

As to the Constitution and “Separation of Church and State” — this is neither “leftist” nor a new concept — unless one considers the Founders leftists.

Thomas Jefferson, was a principal Founder, the author of the Declaration of Independence, and generally considered one of our greatest presidents). He wrote;

“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 should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” – Thomas Jefferson, in a letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

James Madison, our 4th President, was the principal author and considered “the Father of the Constitution” wrote:

“It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho’ bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE.” –James Madison

(Emphasis added. Also, please note that Madison, like Jefferson, also uses the term “separation of the church from the state” — which appears several times in his writings, as well as in Mr. Jefferson’s. See below for further instances of this phrase. Also note that here he says clearly and plainly that it is the church that is meant to be totally separated from the state, although in the First Amendment of the Constitution he also makes it clear that the state shall not prohibit free worship. )

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. [James Madison, c. 1803]

Note that Madison, like Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, again uses the term “separation of church and state.”

The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state. [James Madison in a letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819]

(Note again, the term “separation of church and state.”)

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. [James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820 – he refers to cases where religious bodies had already tried to encroach on the government.]

(Again the concept of separation of religion and state — and his notice and disapprobation of the creeping intrusion of religion into government even in his time — — a trend that has only gotten worse over the intervening centuries.)

So it seems the “leftists” who originated this concept included two of the primary and most influential Founders of this nation.

Even Founders who were very religious in their personal lives (such as the great patriot and clergyman Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, a signer of the Declaration) agreed that a separation of Church and State was a good idea, because, as Madison remarked,

“Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”

Who indeed?

So, (name withheld), I am afraid you have failed to grasp the intent of our “leftist” Founders in re: the Constitutional separation of Church and State.

However, in case there are or were any more questions on this issue, I attach below a comprehensive essay on the subject originally written for another correspondent, and modified and improved as a handy guide to the topic.

As to use of the term “Fundamentalists” — I am not entirely comfortable with the use of that term myself because a number of our staff and supporters (and most of our clients) are evangelical Protestant Christians who might also be termed “fundamentalists.” Several are ordained ministers, including at least one Advisory Board member.

It would be tedious and lengthy in the extreme to detail the twisted eschatology of the people we are dealing with, so we refer to them by a name used by a number of others to refer to them –“Dominionists”

Unfortunately, there is not one simple term that covers them and their beliefs, so we sometimes also use the term “radical” and / or “extremist” fundamentalist to describe them. They also describe themselves as “fundamentalists.” Suffice to say that one writer has coined the term “American Taliban” to describe them, and essentially that is what they are — a “Christian” version of the Taliban, with a radical agenda that includes the take-over of the US from within, and the establishment of a harsh “Old Testament” version of Sharia-like religious law that would make an extremist Islamic fundamentalist mullah green with envy.

In violation of the Constitution, public law, and the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Dominionists (a radical and militant subset of evangelical Christianity) aggressively seek converts. Failing persuasion, they harass, bully, and attempt to intimidate under color of authority service members under their command or control, in order to attempt to proselytize even service members who have expressed their unwillingness.

When in command positions, they use tactics ranging from denying choice assignments and promotions to those they don’t consider Christian or “Christian enough” to giving poor performance reviews, and difficult, dirty, and dangerous tasks – including potentially deadly tasks in combat. (One of our clients was assigned as “permanent point” in a combat unit!)

They have advocated in both words and writing the overthrow or “replacement” of the Republic and Constitution (“by ballot or by bullet”), and replacing them with an Old Testament style theocracy, complete with “Biblical” Sharia-like laws, complete with public executions by stoning, sword, or other “Biblical” methods, with mandatory attendance and participation by the whole community – including children.

Anyone not considered “Christian enough” by these people if they gain power will be forced to either convert to or accept their warped version of Christianity – or die. They have been correctly described as “American Taliban.”

Some people might consider this some sort of tin-hat conspiracy theory, or that they are just far-right fringe loonies without a hope of acheiving power, but these people have been operating “under the radar” for years, and are now firmly entrenched in every branch and MOS of our armed forces and government, at every level – and are getting bolder by the day.

Let’s examine the words of the individuals who founded the movement, such as the late Rousas John Rushdoony who wrote that they intend to “…lead them (non-believers) to Jesus – in chains, if necessary.”

Rushdoony also wrote that democracy is “heresy” and that Christians must remember that “a monarchy (referring to “God’s kingdom on earth”) is not a democracy.” and “Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life.”

Rushdoony listed eighteen capital “crimes” including blasphemy, witchcraft, astrology, adultery, incorrigible delinquency, homosexuality, promiscuity or unchastity before marriage, wearing a red dress (for women – though one must suppose these people would apply it to men, too), and failure to keep a kosher kitchen.

Punishment for non-capital crimes would include whipping and indentured servitude or slavery (including for debt), and prisons would become temporary holding tanks while prisoners awaited sentencing. Women and children would again become chattel property of men.

Rushdoony and other Dominionists have been aptly described elsewhere as “the American Taliban” as noted above. This is true in more ways than just their morbid interest in cruel and unusual punishment. They are extremely retrogressive socially and politically, and share many more beliefs in common with the Islamic fundamentalists than they do with the average American.

Perhaps one reason they hate the Islamist fascists is that they have so much in common with them — battles between kindred are always the worst. One can only hope that they never recognize their true kinship, lest they join forces in a truly unholy alliance.

Rushdoony’s Chalcedon Foundation also helped establish The Rutherford Institute, a legal organization to promote their agenda through the very courts they plan to supersede once in power, so although Rushdoony died, his organization and legacy of theocracy lives on.

Gary North, Rushdoony’s son-in-law, espouses (publicly) a slightly less draconian version, stating, “I don’t want to kill homosexuals–I would be happy just driving them back into the closet.” However, he also espouses stoning for blasphemers and those who curse their parents, and has stated that public stoning of “malefactors” would be “a great way to bring communities together.”

A stunning example of their theology (and ultimate plans for everyone not of their belief) is the statement of US Army chaplain MAJ James Linzey, who, in a 1999 video, described mainstream Protestant churches as “demonic, dastardly creatures from the pit of hell ” that should be “stomped out.”

The Council of Full Gospel Churches (Linzey’s accrediting agency founded by retired Army COL Ammerman) not only didn’t pull his accreditation, but supported this egregious violation of his mission and orders as a military chaplain, and of his oath as an officer. (Of course, Ammerman is as bad or worse.)

The CFGC, COL Ammerman, MAJ Linzey, and their cohorts have also denigrated Judaism and Catholicism, as well as mainstream Protestant churches.

COL Ammerman and MAJ Linzey have also spread conspiracy theories about “Satanic forces” in the U.S. government for years aiding a military takeover aided by unnamed “foreign” (presumably UN) troops.

In 2008, COL Ammerman said that four presidential candidates (US Senators Obama, Clinton, Biden and Dodd) should be hanged for treason – for not voting to designate English as America’s official language. He also stated that President Obama would be assassinated as a “secret Muslim.” (In the late 1990s, he had also called for the execution of then-president Clinton for treason.)

CFGC and its chaplains have repeatedly and egregiously violated the Constitution and the laws and regulations regarding chaplaincies, including those on interfaith cooperation, bans on membership in&n bsp;organizations with religious or racial supremacist principles, especially those espousing violence, and that active military personnel cannot make disloyal or contemptuous statements about officials.

This problem, as stated, is very wide-spread and deeply entrenched, not only in the military but in many areas of government and indeed, other nations.

These people are very clever, subtle, well-organized, and well-funded. They are gaining ground in many areas – including the military and the Service Academies.

These people are our main opponents, and regular violators of the very Constitution which guarantees them freedom of religion and pluralism, which they call upon to defend themselves as they attack and undermine the very principles which allow them to exist and operate.

While we accept their right to believe as they please, within the framework of the Constitution and public law, we balk at allowing them to proselytize unwilling service personnel under their command “under color of authority” and to undermine and work to destroy the Constitution that many of our members (most of whom are former or serving members of the US Armed Forces), swore to “uphold and defend.”

The Dominionists and their allied sects are committing egregious assaults on the Constitution and on the rights of servicemen and women daily. We expose to the clear light of day their violations, as well as those of any other individuals or groups who attempt the same. Unfortunately, this group constitutes the bulk of the complaints we receive.

Mr. Weinstein determined that this movement, far from being a few relatively harmless religious lunatics, had developed into a highly dangerous and credible threat to the Constitution and to the Republic itself. He determined that there was no way he could stand aside and let them continue their rise to power. He left his employment, and founded MRFF, using all his own money and mortgaging his possessions, borrowing from friends, family and anyone he could convince of the need to battle this threat. He quite literally has wagered his “life, fortune, and sacred honor” to defend the Constitution he swore (like all of us who have served) to “uphold and defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” That is why he (and we) belong, and do what we do. In return, we are demonized, vilified, and daily threatened with death and violence to ourselves and our families.

Perhaps he doesn’t always use the right choice of words, and he freely admits it. I myself have advised him many times to tone down the rhetoric. However, as I said, he faces death threats on a daily basis, and runs the MRFF on a shoe-string, despite a fast-growing client base. It is his baby, and I cannot tell him what to do or how to do it — even if I had accepted his original invitation to join the advisory board.

FYI, some Online sources of information on Dominionism:

http://www.mainstreambaptists.org/mob4/dominionism.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_Theology

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christofascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousas_John_Rushdoony

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr.htm

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Dominionism

http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/cr_intro.html#dominion

http://www.theocracywatch.org/dominionism.htm

http://www.jewsonfirst.org/dominionism.html

http://www.rwor.org/a/033/dominionism-be-very-afraid.htm

Pat Robertson’s “The Secret Kingdom” outlines his own plans for a theocracy.

I hope that this information will help you to better understand the nature of the MRFF and the nature of the struggle we are waging against a large and growing enemy with deep pockets and strong political and economic backing, and who constitute a far greater and more urgent threat to the Republic than a handful of rag-tag radical Islamic fundamentalists either here or elsewhere.

Again, thanks for writing us with your concerns.

I remain, sir,

Semper Fidelis,

F. J. Taylor
USMC (Ret.)

To support the Military Religious Freedom Foundation, or to learn more about their efforts on behalf of United States military personnel, go to:

https://www.militaryreligiousfreedom.org/helpbuildthewall

Was America founded as a Christian nation?

This nation was not founded on “Christian ideals” — although most of its founders indubitably came from backgrounds which included various sects and denominations of Christianity. (Albeit often not ones which would pass muster with the radical “Christian” right we oppose — or, I suspect, with you either.)

The USA as a nation (as opposed to its pre-Constitution colonies) was founded on several ideals, but these were most assuredly not Christian, or even Jewish, in origin.

Our founding ideals were democracy and constitutional republicanism — both Pagan Greco-Roman political constructs that had nothing to do with Christianity, which they predated by centuries. Another strong influence was the “Age of Reason.”

The very word and concept of democracy is borrowed from Greek roots (“dimo kratia” — rule of the people), which blossomed among the Pagan Greeks, c. 508 BC — i.e., about 500 years before the putative advent of a 1st century AD Jewish rabbi, Yehoshua ben Yusuf. (Modern Christians refer to him by a transliterated version of his name [from Aramaic to Greek to Latin and finally into English] as “Jesus” — though a better equivalent would be Yeshua or Joshua.)

The concept of the constitutional republic originates with Aristotle (c. 384 BC – 322 BC), a Pagan Greek. He contrasts the polity of republican government with democracy and oligarchy in book 3, chapter 6 of Politics. The polity would be ruled by elements from both segments in society (the oligarchs and the lower classes) in the best interests of the country as a whole. This concept likewise obviously predates Yehoshua — in this case by about 350 years.

The later Roman culture which superseded the Greek, was first a kingdom, but later was re-established as a Republic, which lasted until the 1st century AD, when it was supplanted by the Empire.

In fact, the entire flowering and height of both the Greek and Roman cultures took place at a time when the people thereof were solidly Pagan. Thus, the roots of both Republics (which we are) and Democracies are not Christian, but completely and utterly Pagan in origin.

(In fact, the Romans began a steep decline, eventually culminating in the Dark Ages — an age of superstition, religious-based persecutions, monarchies, brutality, squalor, and disease — shortly after they adopted Christianity.)

However, I would be just as concerned if modern Pagans attempted to impose their beliefs on the whole nation based on the (correct) premise that their faith was the prevailing one when these concepts were established — though I do not personally know a single modern Pagan who feels that everyone must believe as they do. In fact, many modern Pagans are among the most tolerant concerning other faiths – certainly more so than many Christians are of theirs — despite the bloody persecution of Pagans by Christians for centuries.

Christianity, on the other hand, was a spin-off of Judaism (essentially a theocractic-based monarchy), which was ruled by a class of priest-kings (such as David and Solomon), supposedly under the over-arching rule of Yahweh (God the father in Christian theology).

When Christianity was adopted by the Roman emperor Constantine as the new state religion of Rome, he convened the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD to establish, formalize, and regulate the belief system. This council (held almost 300 years after the traditional death of Yehoshua) also decided to make mandatory the alleged divinity of Rabbi Yeheshua ben Yusuf, which had not previously been accepted by all branches of believers, many of whom viewed yehoshua as a teacher of moral precepts, not a divinity — much as many of most important US Founders viewed him. (See below.)

Yehoshua’s position as a divinity was formalized (as was the doctrine of “bishops” controlling the various churches, and other doctrinal matters) and over the ensuing years, a series of proto-“Crusades” were aged against all Christians who did not recognize Yehoshua as a divinity, resulting in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of “heretic” men, women, and children — i.e., those who did not choose to recognize Yehoshua as a divinity, as opposed to a teacher of moral precepts. This signaled the start of centuries of bloody religious warfare and persecutions — first against the pagans (after the Christians gained state power and backing), and then against Christians whose beliefs didn’t fit the accepted Nicene mold.

These barbarous and bloodthirsty religious wars eventually extinguished any open resistance to the doctrines of the Roman church, which became the most powerful church, and its bishop (now known as the Pope), became the de facto and de jure leader of all Christians in the West. (The Eastern church, having its own powerful sponsors in the form of the Eastern Emperor and his legions, fared somewhat better, and was able to hold its own. The Great Schism effectively divided the church into two entities.)

(I might add that the idea of exterminating other religious beliefs was a concept almost unknown to the ancient pagans, especially the Romans, who generally allowed freedom of religion, and incorporated subject or allied nations’ deities into their pantheons. It is also instructive to note that many of the Founders and indeed, many early American settlers, would have been considered “heretics” by Nicene standards — and particularly by the Dominionists.)

The modern version of democracy was part of a broad new flowering of thought among the intellectual elite of European philosophers from about the middle of the 17th century to the early 19th century known as the “Age of Enlightenment” (sometimes included with its early 17th century predecessor, the “Age of Reason”). Its principles were based on reason and intellect instead of illogic, irrationality, and superstition, and sought to replace both the aristocracy and established churches, which were viewed by them as reactionary and oppressive. Many of these philosophers were not religious at all, or Deists at best.

In America, many of the men who became the Founders were followers of, and indeed participants in, the Enlightenment movement. Though most were born and raised as at least nominal Christians of one sect or another, our seminal thinkers, who were among the most influential and important Founders, and the main crafters of our form of government (such as Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, Paine, among others) were Deists at best, eschewing the “miraculous” elements of religion.

Many (including Washington) were Masons, who, while publicly announcing belief in a higher power, were definitely not mainstream Christians in the modern sense. (In fact, it is extremely doubtful that any of these gentlemen would pass the modern “litmus test” for “true believers” — and I would surmise that were they here today, they might well be MRFF clients.)

They had seen the evils generated by the various “established” churches of Europe and elsewhere – which was one of the main reasons that the US was created as a secular nation with NO established religion.

Of course, their pubic pronouncements often reflected or catered to more mainstream religious beliefs. As Seneca the Younger wrote; “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers useful.” (That is as true of the ruling classes now – as when it was written. The modern politics is rife with pious, sanctimonious hypocrites who use religion as a useful tool, while not really believing in it themselves. “Divide and Conquer” still works as well.)

However, one thing was crystal clear from the beginning – they had NO intention of establishing a Christian state religion – or ANY state religion, which even many preachers of the era were opposed to, given that the establishment of one sect over another would limit their own freedom to proselytize and preach as they saw fit.

I mentioned the beliefs of the principal Founders above. Let’s see what they themselves had to say on the issue of religion;

John Adams, the first Vice President and second President, was certainly an influential Founder. However, he was not a fundamentalist (especially in modern terms) by any stretch of the imagination.

However, he was an elitist, and believed that religion was necessary to keep the Great Unwashed in check, as other members of the ruling classes have done since time immemorial. (There may be some truth in that idea, but that is another discussion.)

Adams was raised a strict Congregationalist (descended from the Puritans), and his father wished him to become a minister, but he preferred to study law. He wrote back to his father saying that he found among the lawyers “noble and gallant achievements” but among the clergy, the “pretended sanctity of some absolute dunces.” (While I personally agree on his stinging assessment of the clergy, I haven’t as sanguine a view of lawyers as he did.)

Adams eventually broke completely with his Calvinist upbringing and became a Unitarian, not believing in the Trinity, predestination, eternal damnation, or many other essential tenets of Calvinism or what we now refer to as “fundamentalism”– which is interesting, considering that modern fundamentalists often cite him as an example of a religious Founder. It is unlikely that he would have “measured up” to the Dominionists’ “standards” of belief – or even to yours.

Speaking of Calvinism, he wrote (in a letter to Samuel Miller dated July 8th, 1820); “I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination.”

Although stoutly defending religion on occasion (he once referred to Thomas Paine as “Blackguard Paine” when denouncing that gentleman’s views on religion), and despite an almost rabid hatred of Catholicism (common in his day, and still common among many Protestants), his views were quite liberal in other respects. He had grave doubts concerning religion.

In a letter to Jefferson, he wrote:

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

Of course, despite his realization of all the evil religion has caused, he went on to say that in his opinion, the world would have been worse without it. (Though I understand his reasoning, I can’t say that I agree with him.)

As to his views upon the Founding, Adams himself clearly did not believe the US had been established by divine intervention or assistance – in fact, quite the opposite. In “A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America” (1787-88) he stated clearly:

“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity.

It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.”

He also wrote:

“. . . Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”

Surely even the most entrenched “fundamentalist” should be able to read such a clearly worded statement and determine that Adams (one of the prime moves in the Revolution and establishment of this country) had no belief in “Divine Intervention” in the establishment of the US.

Here are some other Adams’ quotes on religion:

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.”

“The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?”

(Note his use of the typically Deist phrase, “God of nature.”)

The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning…. And, even since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will soon find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your legs and hands, and fly into your face and eyes. — John Adams, letter to John Taylor, 1814,

“As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?” – John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

Thomas Jefferson was one of the principle Founders, and clearly one of the most remarkable products of the Enlightenment, being a statesman, architect, inventor, archaeologist, and horticulturist, and founder of the University of Virginia. He has been consistently ranked as one of the greatest presidents.

He was also a Deist, who admired the moral teachings of Yehoshua. However, Jefferson did not believe in Yehoshua’s supposed divinity, virgin birth, or miracles

In fact, Jefferson literally cut and pasted together his own version of the Bible, which left out all the miraculous elements, (which he considered nonsense), and only included the moral teachings Yehoshua was reputed to have spoken in his lifetime. (This is why the Dominionist dominated Texas School Board recently wrote him out of most of their so-called “history curriculum.”)

As to his attitude towards Christianity (in the form of dogmatic religions, as opposed to the moral teachings of Yehoshua), I’ll let his words speak for themselves.

“Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.” – “Notes on Virginia” 1782

“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.” – letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800

“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 should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” – letter to Danbury Baptist Association, CT., Jan. 1, 1802

“History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.” – to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.” – letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

“The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills.” – letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

“In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.” – letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

“What need we despair of after the resurrection of Connecticut to light and liberty? I had believed that the last retreat of monkish darkness, bigotry, and abhorrence of those advances of the mind which had carried the other States a century ahead of them. They seemed still to be exactly where their forefathers were when they schismatized from the covenant of works, and to consider as dangerous heresies all innovations, good or bad I join you, therefore, in sincere congratulations that this den of the priesthood is at length broken up, and that a Protestant Popedom is no longer to disgrace the American history and character.” —Letter to John Adams on the disestablishment of the Connecticut Church — vii, 62. M., 1817.)

“As you say of yourself, I too am an Epicurian. I consider the genuine (not the imputed) doctrines of Epicurus as containing everything rational in moral philosophy which Greece and Rome have left us.” – letter to William Short, Oct. 31, 1819

“I can never join [John] Calvin in addressing his god. He was indeed an Atheist, which I can never be; or rather his religion was Daemonism. If ever man worshipped a false god, he did.” – letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

“And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.” – Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

“It is between fifty and sixty years since I read it [the Apocalypse], and I then considered it merely the ravings of a maniac, no more worthy nor capable of explanation than the incoherences of our own nightly dreams.” – letter to General Alexander Smyth, Jan. 17, 1825

I might add that Mr. Jefferson, in addition to not being a Christian in the modern Religious Right’s sense of the word, was an early proponent of exactly the kind of multi-cultural society that we now have, and that contrary to you \r fallacious notion, “other religions” are NOT “guests” here. Writing in his autobiography about the passage of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, he said;

“…a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word ‘Jesus Christ,’ so that it should read ‘a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion,’ the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.”

James Madison, our 4th President, was the principal author and considered “the Father of the Constitution” expressed a similar sentiment when describing the same incident. (How’s that for “original intent”?)

He also wrote:

“It was the Universal opinion of the Century preceding the last, that Civil Government could not stand without the prop of a religious establishment; and that the Christian religion itself, would perish if not supported by the legal provision for its clergy. The experience of Virginia conspiciously corroboates the disproof of both opinions. The Civil Government, tho’ bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability and performs its functions with complete success; whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the TOTAL SEPARATION OF THE CHURCH FROM THE STATE.”

(Emphasis added. Also, please note that Madison, like Jefferson, also uses the term “separation of the church from the state” — which appears several times in his writings, as well as in Mr. Jefferson’s. See below for further instances of this phrase. Also note that here he says clearly and plainly that it is the church that is meant to be totally separated from the state, although in the First Amendment of the Constitution he also makes it clear that the state shall not prohibit free worship. )

In his “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” in Virginia (June, 1785), Madison wrote;

“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.

Because finally, the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the Declaration of Rights which pertain to the good people of Virginia, as the basic and foundation of government, it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis.

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

(Note above one of the many references by our Founders to “freedom of conscience” as mentioned above.)

Here it is quite clear again that he is adamantly against mixing religion with government.

Madison (again like Jefferson) was also against public state-sponsored prayer, though he relented once (under pressure) during the War of 1812. In 1813, Madison proclaimed a day of prayer, but later said such proclamations were not appropriate because;

“They seem to imply and certainly nourish the erroneous idea of a national religion.”

(Emphasis added.)

Note the choice of words. Hardly the words of a man who believed the US was in any way intended to be a religion-based nation. He also did not believe that chaplains should be appointed either to the military or Congress, as stated in his “Detached Memorandae” (which you should read).

Other views he expressed included these:

Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects. [James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., January 1774]

Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprize, every expanded prospect. [James Madison, in a letter to William Bradford, April 1,1774]

…Freedom arises from the multiplicity of sects, which prevades America and which is the best and only security for religious liberty in any society. For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest. [James Madison, spoken at the Virginia convention on ratifying the Constitution, June 1778]

No distinction seems to be more obvious than that between spiritual and temporal matters. Yet whenever they have been made objects of Legislation, they have clashed and contended with each other, till one or the other has gained the supremacy. [James Madison in a letter to Thomas Jefferson Oct-Nov 1787]

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries. [James Madison, c. 1803]

Note that Madison, like Jefferson in his letter to the Danbury Baptists, again uses the term “separation of church and state.”

The Civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state. [James Madison in a letter to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819]

(Note again, the term “separation of church and state.”)

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. [James Madison, Detached Memoranda, 1820 – he refers to cases where religious bodies had already tried to encroach on the government.]

(Again the concept of separation of religion and state — and his notice and disapprobation of the creeping intrusion of religion into government even in his time — — a trend that has only gotten worse over the intervening centuries.)

Nothwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Gov’ & Religion neither can be duly supported: Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded agst.. And in a Gov’t of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together;

It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom…. We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Gov.

[The above three paragraphs are by James Madison, all from a letter to Edward Livingston dated July 10, 1822, ]

Benjamin Franklin’s pious sayings are often quoted by the religious right (although they ignore his rather less pious actual doings). While he certainly believed in a Supreme Being, his ideas were, to say the least, rather interesting.

Franklin (like several of the Founders) was a Deist, despite being (like Adams) raised as a Congregationalist (Puritan). Like Jefferson and other Founders, Franklin expressed belief in a supreme being, and espoused Christian moral principles (though he often failed to follow them himself — particularly chastity) — but did not believe in the divinity, virgin birth, miracles, or any of the other trappings accorded to Jesus by fundamentalists.

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”

Franklin himself made that clear several times during his life in bis autobiography and other writings, beginning with his “Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion” published November 20, 1728.

(Please see the Benjamin Franklin Papers at http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedVolumes.jsp?vol=1&page=101a When you have finished reading it, carry on with this letter.)

You will notice in these “Articles” that Franklin does not mention the Puritan or Calvinist ideas of belief in salvation, hell, the divinity of Jesus, or other religious dogma. In fact, he has some rather bizarre concepts of what constituted “deity” – and these ideas would not have passed muster with any fundamentalists — then or now.

For example, he sees the ultimate Supreme Being as being indifferent to mankind, and who created other beings superior to man, in themselves “gods” — each of whom has their own fiefdom in terms of a solar system, and who are therefore the more “personal” subordinate gods of their sub-creations, the “local” god of each system. Therefore, in his view, we in our solar system are subordinate to a deity who is more personally concerned with us than the “supreme being” who created all – including our deity.

He further clarified his position in his 1771 autobiography. (Which is well worth reading on its own merits.)

He retained these beliefs until his death. In 1790, just about a month before he died, Franklin wrote a letter to Ezra Stiles, then president of Yale University, who had asked him his views on religion:

“As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his divinity; tho’ it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and I think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the Truth with less Trouble….”

Thomas Paine, author, pamphleteer, radical, inventor, intellectual, and revolutionary, was the chief propagandist of the Revolution. His “Common Sense” (1776) was so influential that John Adams said, “Without the pen of the author of ‘Common Sense,’ the sword of Washington would have been raised in vain.”

Paine also authored “The American Crisis” a series which ran from 1776–1783, and “The Age of Reason” among many others. Writing in “The Age of reason” he stated;

“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

In addition to the Constitution and the writings of the Founders above, in 1797 America made a treaty with the Muslim kingdom of Tripoli (in the present state of Libya).

This treaty was initially drafted on November 4th, 1796 (at the end of Washington’s presidency) by Joel Barlow, the American consul to Algiers. (Barlow was a friend to Jefferson and Madison, and had been an Army chaplain in the Revolutionary War appointed by Washington himself, but he later abandoned dogmatic religion and became a Rationalist.)

Barlow forwarded the treaty to the Senate, where it was endorsed by Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, approved by the Senate, and signed by the new President, John Adams on June 10th, 1797, and published in the Philadelphia Gazette on June 17th of that year.

This treaty explicitly states (in Article 11):

“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

Thus, in one of our earliest treaties with a foreign power (ironically, from an Islamic-based culture), our first two Presidents and Congress agreed that the US was “not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” – in other words, we were a secular nation. Q.E.D.

As to the Founders’ personal beliefs, a brief glance at their own words (above) should suffice to demonstrate that many would not be considered “Christians” by modern fundamentalists.

That this fact was well known in the early days of the Republic is proven by the words of the Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson, an Episcopal minister of Albany, New York. In a sermon preached in October, 1831, he said:

“The founders of our nation were nearly all Infidels, and that of the presidents who have thus far been elected not a one had professed a belief in Christianity….

“Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism.”

In 1831, the presidents had been up to that time: Washington; John Adams; Jefferson; Madison; Monroe; John Quincy Adams; and Jackson. Please note that Dr. Wilson was not being complementary of these early leaders — he was being critical, and stating what was a generally known and acknowledged fact in America in this period, which coincided with an intense religious “revival” known in theological circles as the “Second Great Awakening” — and which in turn was a precursor of the various religious “revivals” that America has experienced up to the present — some of which have involved trying to inject religion into government, despite the best attempts of the Founders to separate them.

However, in the final analysis, ALL the Founders, Theist, Deist or whatever their personal beliefs, came together and wisely constructed and approved a secular government system, which allows freedom of conscience for all, while prohibiting the establishment of ANY religion.

Therefore the notion of a theistic (let alone Christian) nature of the Founding of this nation is not supported by the Constitution or actual history. Q.E.D

Share This Story

Leave A Comment