Deism

Jesse Booth said:

I don't think any of the founders would have agreed with the compulsion to visit Mecca at some point in their lives, the necessity of praying in the general direction of Mecca five times a day, or not eating or drinking during the day for an entire month, all of which was designed by Mohammed to ensure obedience to his caliphate God. The religion's very name means submission to God, and the orthodoxy of the religion is arguably even more restrictive and centralized than Catholocism, a religion that was rightfully banned from Georgia until those goddamn revolutionaries the founders ruined everything with the constitution sucked off the Pope **** it. I hate the Catholic church. There, I said it.

Even boiled down to its simplest, most universal tenets, Islam is unappealing to anyone who already has a monotheistic religion. No denomination of Christianity is more rigidly tied to a geographic seat of power than Islam is, not even Catholocism - the Catholics have moved their seat of power out of Rome before. Only Catholocism is as rigidly tied to a mortal ruler as Islam, which has been in a state of war with itself over who is the mortal successor to Mohammed's position of leadership for over a millennium. And when you look at the wider system of religious law that comes with Islam, the rigid legal system directly codified in the Quran as it was with Judaism, it only gets more oppressive.

The five pillars you boiled the religion down to cut away whatever philosophical ideas about Jesus that may have appealed to Jefferson and Jefferson alone, and left only the central tenets of a theocratic bureacracy. That your moderate Muslim friends don't pay too much attention to the downright oppressive legal codes of their own religion is a blessing for them and their families, and I wish that all of the Muslims in the world were so independent from the oppressive moral and legal codes in their holy book.

Click to expand...

SheWolf said:

I get it, you don't like Islam... There is no mortal ruler of Islam btw. If people want to pray five times a day, why get upset about it? It doesn't bother anybody.

Click to expand...

Jesse Booth said:

And yet the Shiites and Sunnis continue to kill each other over who should have succeeded Mohammed, Abu Bakr or Ali. I don't have any problem with how many times Muslims are required to pray to a mortal seat of power, at least not because of any impact it may have on me - I do have a problem with the anti-intellectual, cultish beliefs common to almost every denomination of modern Abrahamic religions for the impact they have on their followers, but I begrudge no one the right to worship as they choose*. I still say that the founders would not be particularly interested in converting to Islam.

Remember that? The whole purpose of this argument? You seem to have forgotten about it several posts ago.

Click to expand...

SheWolf said:

You yourself are not even staying on topic. You constantly bash Islam and other religions. You can't help yourself or your nonsense generalizations. See above. As I said, my best friend is from Pakistan... a country of Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and they are not killing each other constantly. I have mixture of Sunni and Shiite associates and friends where I live. We share our city peacefully... :lol: ... I just can't take this.

Click to expand...

Jesse Booth said:

On the contrary, I am on topic, and that topic is the history of Islam and why the founding fathers would not have been interested in it. However, you seem to be under the impression that the thread is about modern Islam, and that your bff is a good argument for why a bunch of men from the 18[SUP]th[/SUP] century would have liked a given religion.

Click to expand...

SheWolf said:

You're not judging the basic teachings of the religion itself. You're judging historical issues for the most part.

I think the founders could have found something positive about the basic teachings of Islam. You really have said anything that changes my opinion.

Click to expand...

Fritz said:

Deism is in a strange place right now for it was VERY popular among intellectuals in the Age of Enlightenment, especially among the Founding Fathers of the US. Today though, it is extremely obscure, and I just know about it be reading some of Voltaire's work and the Internet.

Deism has its own website here: Welcome To The Deism Site!

What is your opinion on Deism? I think its a pretty good philosophical belief and I'd follow it...

Click to expand...

Wessexman said:

I don't know if deism was especially popular amongst the Founding Fathers. At least 50 of the 55 of those at the constitutional convention were orthodox, if not overly zealous, Protestants.

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

WOuld you care to show your sources on that claim?

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

WOuld you care to show your sources on that claim?

Click to expand...

Logicman said:

Here's what you should know:

Dr. M. E. Bradford of the University of Dallas conducted a study of the Founding Founders to look at this very important question (whether the Founding Fathers were deists or Christians, etc.). He discovered the Founders were members of denominations as follows: twenty-eight Episcopalians, eight Presbyterians, seven Congregationalists, two Lutherans, two Dutch Reformed, two Methodists, two Roman Catholics, and only three deists.

Click to expand...

One can differentiate a Founding Father influenced by Deism from an orthodox Christian believer by following certain criteria. Anyone seeking the answer should consider at least the following four points. First, an inquirer should examine the Founder’s church involvement. However, because a colonial church served not only religious but also social and political functions, church attendance or service in a governing body (such as an Anglican vestry, which was a state office in colonies such as Maryland, Virginia, and South Carolina) fails to guarantee a Founder’s orthodoxy. But Founders who were believing Christians would nevertheless be more likely to go to church than those influenced by Deism.

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

I can list 5 founding fathers whose writings in fact were hostile to mainstream Christianity, whose writings were deistic in nature

1) George Washington
2) John Adams
3) Thomas Paine
4) Thomas Jefferson
5) James Madison

So, right there, that shows Bradford was cherry picking data... Since, for example, George Washington was nominally an anglican, but was much more in line with deistic thought.

Click to expand...

Logicman said:

Paine, yeah, but the rest is horse manure, Ramoss.

Was Washington a Christian? Yes! https://wallbuilders.com/george-washington-christian/

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson was hardly speaking from a strict deist standpoint when he said:

“Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781)

Now, why should Jefferson tremble for his country if God does not involve himself in the affairs of men and nations?

And then there’s this:

“I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who led our forefathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted them in a country flowing with all the necessities and comforts of life.” (Monday, March 4, 1805, in his 2nd Inaugural Address)

Another oblique reference to the Bible. Remember, a strict deist was one who believed God was like a watchmaker, who wound up the universe and thereafter did not involve himself in the affairs of men and nations. Jefferson obviously believed otherwise.

More examples busting your claims in the link: https://righterreport.com/2014/06/15/were-the-founding-fathers-deists/

Nice try, though.

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

Funny how that blog trys to redefine things.. and is SO inaccurate. The 'wallbuilders.com' also lies though it teeth. .. because it tries to distort the historical record and reports about George Washington. Anybody who quotes David Barton for historical information is either ignorant or lying.

Click to expand...

vesper said:

I don't know anything substantial about "Wallbuilders.com" but I have read the writings of George Washington and I must say sir you should check out for yourself what he has been quoted in print and in speech before making further comment because he bests you.

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

Well, when it comes to the quotes from George Washington, David Barton uses manufactured quotes.. ... and makes claims that can about what various founding fathers allegedly said that either can not be verified, or has shown to be false. "wallbuilders' is David Barton's web site, and a lot of the fake founding father quotes have come from him.

Click to expand...

The connection between the Washington family and Pohick Church can be traced back to the nomination of the first rector, Charles Green, who was sponsored by Augustine Washington (George Washington’s father) on August 19, 1736. Following in his father's footsteps, George Washington became a vestryman of the Truro Parish in July of 1765. In 1732, the Virginia General Assembly designated the area north of the Occaquan River as the Truro Parish. Pohick, being the only church in that area at the time, became the Parish Church of Truro.

Part of the vestry's responsibility was to oversee matters of money, maintenance, and the election of clergy. In addition to these duties, Washington was also entrusted with the title of Church Warden and was influential in the relocation of Pohick Church to its current site. Washington remained a loyal vestryman of the Church until his attention was redirected to matters of war and country.

Click to expand...

vesper said:

Who cares about "wallbuilders".

I am talking about your flippant comments above that you claim Washington was a Deist. Not so fast.

There is too much evidence that counters that claim.

I think sometimes because there is very good evidence that Washington was tolerant of other religions is sometimes used to claim him to be a Deist. Also others point out that he didn't refer to the person of Jesus Christ in his reference to G-d very seldom. The only mentions of Christ are in public papers, and those references are scarce. His favorite name often used in his writings for G-d was Providence. But during that time period it was not common for Anglicans and Episcopalians to refer to G-d as Jesus Christ. It was however common among Baptists.

Washington was raised by a devout Christian mother and father of the Anglican faith. He was a faithful church attendee and was known for his charitable deeds to the poor. He and his family have a long history with the Pohick Church where Washington faithfully served.


BibleÂ*·Â*George Washington's Mount Vernon

There is also an account of Washington's nephew telling of Washington, in private, kneeling in prayer morning and evening.

He was also a Freemason, whose tenets not only require a faith in G-d but require belief in the afterlife.

There is a substantial amount of evidence that Washington was well versed in Scriptures and often used them in speeches and his writings.

BibleÂ*·Â*George Washington's Mount Vernon

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

You do realize that many freemasons were deists. As for George Washington being part of a congregation, so were many deists, since that is what was socially expected at the time.

There are three factors that made people conclude George Washington was a deist. One was he was a freemason,in fact. The other two is that none of his writings mention Jesus. He also never went to communion.

Click to expand...

vesper said:

Some of his public writings do refer to Jesus.

Washington was said to have refused to take part in communion in some accounts, but there are conflicting reports. Others state that Washington did participate in Holy Communion before taking control of the Continental Army. Something you need to keep in mind about Holy Communion. A few hundred years ago and back over a thousand years a Christian by recognition of faith did not partake in Communion if there was any sin in his life that kept him out of fellowship with G-d. It was serious business back then and not something one entered into without soul searching first. Today, it is not like that. People partake knowing they are not living right and the minute they leave the church parking lot will continue to be out of fellowship with G-d. G-d is a holy G-d and you can not come into communion with him unless you are willing to confess your sins. It was serious business back then.

Another thing you need to keep in mind is how Free Masons were viewed two hundred years ago. The Order of Ancient, Free, and Accepted Masons was first established in London in 1717. Despite tracing their historical roots to the first mason of the Temple of Solomon, the masons of the eighteenth century had little to do with the profession of architecture or masonry. It was founded for the purpose of gathering political, cultural, and intellectual elites within a single fraternity. It was a frat house for critical thinkers where stipulations to join you had to believe in the Creator and an afterlife. Do you realize the most well educated men of that era were either, doctors, lawyers and ministers/pastors/priests? It was Masons like Washington and others initially joined the Freemasons with the intention of mimicking the English where the organization started. But the member of this organization ultimately contributed to the development of the American Revolution. During the revolutionary era, masons George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Adams, Richard Henry Lee, John Hancock, and James Madison are among the men and other leading revolutionaries used masonic lodges as gathering places to discuss the relevant issues of the day and plan resistance against unpopular British policies.

So because of the membership as a mason does not equate to being a deist.

The criticism of free masons didn't get nasty till the 20th century among religious organizations. Some of it could be warranted in that time period of the organization but in the 1700's early 1800's no.

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

I will amend that statement. He never mentioned Jesus in his private correspondence, and the references he had in his public ones are scarce.

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

Well, when it comes to the quotes from George Washington, David Barton uses manufactured quotes.. ... and makes claims that can about what various founding fathers allegedly said that either can not be verified, or has shown to be false. "wallbuilders' is David Barton's web site, and a lot of the fake founding father quotes have come from him.

Click to expand...

vesper said:

Who cares about "wallbuilders".

I am talking about your flippant comments above that you claim Washington was a Deist. Not so fast.

There is too much evidence that counters that claim.

I think sometimes because there is very good evidence that Washington was tolerant of other religions is sometimes used to claim him to be a Deist. Also others point out that he didn't refer to the person of Jesus Christ in his reference to G-d very seldom. The only mentions of Christ are in public papers, and those references are scarce. His favorite name often used in his writings for G-d was Providence. But during that time period it was not common for Anglicans and Episcopalians to refer to G-d as Jesus Christ. It was however common among Baptists.

Washington was raised by a devout Christian mother and father of the Anglican faith. He was a faithful church attendee and was known for his charitable deeds to the poor. He and his family have a long history with the Pohick Church where Washington faithfully served.


BibleÂ*·Â*George Washington's Mount Vernon

There is also an account of Washington's nephew telling of Washington, in private, kneeling in prayer morning and evening.

He was also a Freemason, whose tenets not only require a faith in G-d but require belief in the afterlife.

There is a substantial amount of evidence that Washington was well versed in Scriptures and often used them in speeches and his writings.

BibleÂ*·Â*George Washington's Mount Vernon

Click to expand...

Logicman said:

That's horse manure, Ramoss. Some quotes have been disputed but overall Barton is right on the money. Your broad and inept blanket generalizations are what's bogus.

Click to expand...

Logicman said:

I corrected Ramoss on his false claims about Washington also but he apparently won't update his thinking on that.

Click to expand...

RAMOSS said:

Uh .. Not at all. Barton is a known fake and fraud. His reputation, except among the naive and ignorant is negligible.

Click to expand...