A somewhat shallow but interesting look at Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Paine, regarding their views on religion and its place in politics and policy.

In an age where everyone's looking for the "smoking gun" that will kill an opponent's campaign, it's hard to see these guys making it much further than the starting gate.

These FF's weren't fundie theists, but neither were they atheists; they believed in a creator God, just not a busybody.

Willard isn't exactly a mainstream Christian by any means, and some would say neither is Obama, though both appear to be "close enough".

Texas has already tossed Jefferson and Franklin in the historical dustbin, replacing them with Smirky the Wonder Chimp and his trainer Darth Dickless.

you are such a clueless dork......

its an interesting question in the order of what would the founders say.....

WHO WROTE that book anyway....wasn't there one not long ago with this premise?????

and this is really just another effort for the leftwing to demeanish the role of religion in our founding, so therefore, we can demeanish religion in the running of the country.....
damn glad there's no God in public schools cause all those scores might not be so low these days.... ( hee hee hee)

HEY AXE....that's called sarcasim....

oh yeah

ONE by R brookhouser

and one by larry sheikzerk(sp)

Well,

They certainly wouldnt be for the ass kicking you liberals have been giving Christianity from our popular culture. If you think that, you are as stupid as you sound.

Hamilton certainly could... He was a total Merchantalist slut.

one thing is for certain...if you have read much about that time or the time around abe...I dont think they would be surprised at the media and how people go after others....everything I have read says they would fit in just fine with politics of destruction..

of course they couldnt have written about andy jackson fuckin around with a divorce....because that doesnt get much press anymore..NOW IF He had taken her to the white house and had his dick sucked...well thats a little more inline with dems today....

and the pics and attacks on abe...would be a staple on msnbc today...

In today's mindset, the attacks on them from the right would be more vehement.
Denying the divinity of Christ?
Denying the Trinity?
Re-writing the Bible?

Yeah, that might ruffle some feathers.

#7 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD
"Hamilton certainly could... He was a total Merchantalist slut."

Say what you will about Hamilton, the man got us out of debt.

Hamilton was indeed a singular character. Of acute understanding, disinterested, honest, and honorable in all private transactions, amiable in society, and duly valuing virtue in private life, yet so bewitched & perverted by the British example, as to be under thoro' conviction that corruption was essential to the government of a nation.

Thomas Jefferson, on Alexander Hamilton in The Anas, 1791-1806

Hamilton could never have been President because he was not born in the US.

:P

#9 | Posted by TheTom
In today's mindset, the attacks on them from the right would be more vehement.
Denying the divinity of Christ?
Denying the Trinity?
Re-writing the Bible?
Yeah, that might ruffle some feathers.
--------------
Saying government employees should not be allowed to vote.

Only landowners should be allowed to vote.

That's just some of the things they talked about, but they would be attacked by the left and the right.

Thomas Paine is the bestest Founding Father EVAH!

Paine - love the guy. A real, true-blue "outside agitator" - they damn near guillotined in France a few years after he was here.

The founders didn't seek freedom from religion.

Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen cloths with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
There laid they Jesus,
And rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

* Jefferson's Bible

this is really just another effort for the leftwing to demeanish the role of religion in our founding, so therefore, we can demeanish religion in the running of the country.....

LOL -dat sum funny stuff there Babbler.

The founders didn't seek freedom from religion.

#17 | Posted by Petrous

have you even read the Age of Reason?

It's free you know.

"I dont think they would be surprised at the media and how people go after others...."

They also would tell us that the media isn't supposed to be objective. But ssssh, don't tell anyone that.
++++++

"The founders didn't seek freedom from religion."

It has been argued that that's exactly why the 1st amendment was... well... first. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion because in England religion was a tool to oppress and control the masses. And to the founders, freedom of thought in all realms was paramount.

#11 | Posted by SHEEPLESHEPERD

Yes, no love lost there!

"It would give you a fever were I to name to you the apostates who have gone over to these heresies, men who were Samsons in the field and Solomons in the council, but who have had their heads shorn by the harlot of England."
-Thomas Jefferson on George Washington, in a letter to his Italian friend Phillip Mazzei.

Jefferson, interestingly, is all about using religious and Biblical metaphors here, regardless of his own take on religion, about which he said, "I am a sect by myself, as far as I know."

#15 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch
"Thomas Paine is the bestest Founding Father EVAH!"

Paine to (and about) Washington:
"...the world will be puzzled to decide whether you are an apostate or an impostor, whether you have abandoned good principles, or whether you ever had any."

None of them could get elected today. All their talk of freedom and liberty is childish idealism. Plus their lack of desire to remodel the ME to make it safe for Israel would make them soft on terror.

Paine, who was probably the most important of all the Founders, couldn't have gotten elected then. He couldn't even get a proper burial in America. Washington left him to rot in a French prison.

AFKABL2....Your obsession with Bill Clinton getting A Blow Job, while not condemning George Bush for FUCKING THIS COUNTRY FOR EIGHT YEARS, says a lot about your character, I THINK YOU'RE JUST JEALOUS THAT MONICA GOT THERE BEFORE YOU..........Get out of the closet you will feel better!!!!!! Than you can find your own Bill Clinton to suck on!!!!

Celery is fucking crazy.

GlennBeck and the TeaParties attempts to build up the FF's and the thread and article that attempts to teardown the FF's are illogical, and fall under the fallacy of nunc pro tunc.

GlennBeck and the TeaParties attempts to build up the FF's and the thread and article that attempts to teardown the FF's are illogical

I don't think either Glenn Beck or the Tea Party cares about Funny Flags. =P

The founders didn't seek freedom from religion.

#17 | Posted by Petrous

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

You are right pet. It was freedom 'of' not 'from'.

To hear the Religious Right tell it, men like George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were 18th-century versions of Jerry Falwell in powdered wigs and stockings. Nothing could be further from the truth. There was a time when Americans voted for candidates who were skeptical of core concepts of Christianity like the Trinity, the divinity of Jesus and the virgin birth. The question is, could any of them get elected today? The sad answer is probably not.

Posted by TheTom

We have folks in Congress right now, that don't believe in those things. How did they get elected?

Unless his unsaid premise was, those same founding founders were all equivalents to modern-day Conservatives. So Conservatives wouldn't elect them today.

Is that it, the founders were all Conservatives?

You are right pet. It was freedom 'of' not 'from'.

Posted by Sniper at 2012-01-13 11:26 AM

It is both.

"make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is freedom from.

"prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is freedom of.

It means clearly religion is a NO LAW ZONE for Congress. None. Not one. Zero. Nada. Hands off. Do not speak on the subject. Closed.

Know what on the money... History they won't talk about!

$1 George Washington... switched sides in military...Traitor
$5 Lincoln ...........Ended states rights...
$10 Hamilton ................Bastard child............
$20 Jackson ........... Adultertor.........
$50 Grant ....... Alcoholic........
$100 Franklin .......,,, Pedefiler....

Jerrerson "on the Nickle" shacked up with black women....

None of the above would be electable today!

It is both.

#32 | Posted by kanrei

Care to explain that by using the constitution?

Care to explain that by using the constitution?

#34 | Posted by Sniper at 2012-01-13 11:41 AM |

I did. Next time try reading the full post.

Who was George a trator to? England?

George Washington was in the brittish army as a officer and switch sides.. Look it up it history..

Excellent article. It's amazing today how the Conservative/Evangelical brand of the Republican party has manage to conflate itself with the "founding fathers," given the truth of the FF's views on religion.

Celery is fucking crazy.

#27 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2012-01-13 11:21 AM|Reply|Flag: IRONY

The constitution states "no standing military"
Why don't we follow the constitution ?

So fucking what? George Blanda wouldn't have been drafted to play football today either.

The movement that influenced the thinking of the founding fathers was the Enlightenment in France. The French and american revolutions came out of it.

Ben Franklin and Thomas Paine were all about Deism. They were the 'spiritual gurus' of the whole gang. Anyone that can read Paine's, Jefferson's or Franklin's writings, including the state documents, and conclude that the men were strict conservative religionists, is just a complete idiot and needs to do some more readin'.

The men were also freemasons, who don't give one pinch of shit what you believe, as long as you believe something.

The religious people in this country are not going to be happy until they revise history to make it seem like this country was founded for them (sound like anyone else we know?).

Well,

They certainly wouldn't be for the equality of blacks you liberals have been giving the U.S. military culture. If you think that, you are as stupid as you sound.

#6 | Posted by boaz

face it-Jesus wouldn't be allowed in most talibaptist televangelic churches today-the friggin' liberal commie free health care guy that he was.

#33 | Posted by truthteller101

You are a fucking moron. Shame on you.

You are right pet. It was freedom 'of' not 'from'.

#30 | Posted by Sniper at 2012-01-13 11:26 AM | Reply | Flag: Missed the part about the no religious tests.

The FF didn't even care if the Prez didn't swear on the Bible:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

That would blow the heads off the righties if Obama affirms in 2013.

It's both cute and disturbing that the liberals think the Founding Fathers would approve of their brand of tyranny over that of religious zealots. Those who govern least govern best

They certainly wouldnt be for the ass kicking you liberals have been giving Christianity from our popular culture.

#6 | Posted by boaz

Bullshit!

You fundamentalists are even more prevalent in culture today then you've ever been. Why do you feel this constant need to shove your religious views into every aspect of our lives? I can't even enjoy an NFL game anymore, without some asshole shoving Christianity down my throat.

#47 the Jeffersonians of the bunch wouldn't have signed had they known the extent of power the feds have now usurped from the States.

Norty,
What bothers righties about Obama (and leftists) isn't whether or not he swears on a bible it's what he thinks of the Constitution. Lefties don't believe in 'defending' the Constitution they believe in torturing the Constitution into saying whatever they want it to say so that they can grab power.

#48 you're delusional. the prohibition was against the government establishing a religion, not this nutbrained shit we see today. what the fuck does a guy in the NFL having to praise God interfere with you at all? what do you suggest, because it's broadcast over the fcc airwaves that athletes be censored? moron...

Not a founding father however I wonder how old Abe Lincoln would fair now days with the invention of high def TV. Might be cool to see what kind of candidates we would end up with now days if nothing was on video. My guess is the American Idol President Obama would not have made it past dog catcher.

I wonder how old Abe Lincoln would fair now days

He would be a Democrat while holding exactly the same beliefs he did in the 1800's.

Who knows, But look they got a magic religiuos underwearer man running today on the GOP ticket.. so who knows?

they got a magic religiuos underwearer man running today

As I said in the Nooner- Perry and Gingrich are Catholics. Just 50 years ago, they would have faced the same stupid bigotry which JFK proved to be unfounded.

Look at Romney's record, not his faith.

Anyone one who talks to a invisible man isn't right in the head!

Anyone one who talks to a invisible man isn't right in the head!

#56 | Posted by truthteller101 at 2012-01-13 01:52 PM |

Talking to G-d is called prayer.

Hearing G-d answer is called insanity.

what the fuck does a guy in the NFL having to praise God interfere with you at all? what do you suggest, because it's broadcast over the fcc airwaves that athletes be censored?

#51 | Posted by somoco

Is Jesus now paying the NFL for advertizing? No? Then the players should simply STFU and play the game, as they're being paid to do. If I want religion shoved at me, instead of simply watching a football game, I'll switch to the 700 club.

Most of these games are played on Sunday. There's nobody stopping you faithful from going to church instead of watching football. ..dickhead.

If I want religion shoved at me, instead of simply watching a football game, I'll switch to the 700 club.

Church and NFL have been at odds over use of Sundays for years. It was only a matter of time before someone had the bright idea to combine the two like a peanutbutter cup.

.Bastard child............
........... Adultertor.........
....... Alcoholic........
.......,,, Pedefiler....

None of the above would be electable today!

#33 | Posted by truthteller101

Nope, none of them types now in the Congress. Who'd elect them?

Is O.G. Kush on the menu today truth?

AFKABL2....Your obsession with Bill Clinton getting A Blow Job, while not condemning George Bush for FUCKING THIS COUNTRY FOR EIGHT YEARS, says a lot about your character, I THINK YOU'RE JUST JEALOUS THAT MONICA GOT THERE BEFORE YOU..........Get out of the closet you will feel better!!!!!! Than you can find your own Bill Clinton to suck on!!!!

#26 | Posted by celisary at 2012-01-13 11

HEY BRO..

HOW"S IT HANGIN?

OOPS ..sorry thats not an appropriate questions to ask a EUNUCH!!!

Thomas Paine is the bestest Founding Father EVAH!

#15 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch at 2012-01-12

so where you would put madison?

@53
Kan,
Abe would not be a supporter of the class warfare pedaled by Democrats. He was and ever will be a Republican. ;)

Is Jesus now paying the NFL for advertizing? No? Then the players should simply STFU and play the game, as they're being paid to do. If I want religion shoved at me, instead of simply watching a football game, I'll switch to the 700 club.
Most of these games are played on Sunday. There's nobody stopping you faithful from going to church instead of watching football. ..dickhead.
#58 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT AT 2012-01-13 02:24 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

No, but football players are required to talk to the press to express their feelings and thoughts after the game. If that means thanking God along with their coaches and teammates, then so be it. Nobody's asking you to listen to Tebow talk after a game. You want to censor free exercise of speech.

I suggest it is you that needs to STFU about it and turn the channel to some PBS shit instead of watching football. I'm not even a faithful churchgoer. I do have tolerance, which you apparently don't understand.

Peace be with you brother....

No, but football players are required to talk to the press to express their feelings and thoughts after the game. If that means thanking God along with their coaches and teammates, then so be it. Nobody's asking you to listen to Tebow talk after a game. You want to censor free exercise of speech.

#64 | Posted by somoco

Players are already censored by the league. How long do you suppose a player could get away with standing up in a post-game interview and promoting some other commercial endeavor before they get the hook from their team or the league? I'm fairly certain that they are prohibited by the NFL, from promotion of anything that is not approved by the NFL.

Perhaps some player could stand up and thank someone because he was truly inspired to play better by the blow-job that he received the previous night. Would the league let it stand? I don't personally find that to be any more offensive.

The point...and the question that you and Boaz never answered...Why do the religious, like Tebow, feel this constant need to use such platforms shove their views into so many aspects of our lives?

Look at Romney's record, not his faith.

#55 | Posted by kanrei

what if he was a devote muslim...could you ignore that?

Fact is (and I am sure the Founding Fathers would agree) a persons Faith (or lack thereof) should not even be a topic of discussion.

Figure the odds of that in todays political climate.

"Fact is (and I am sure the Founding Fathers would agree) a persons Faith (or lack thereof) should not even be a topic of discussion."

United States Constitution, Article VI.
The founders covered it.
Unfortunately actually reading The Constitution isn't required to vote.

so where you would put madison?

#62 | Posted by afkabl2

in wisconsin.

The point...and the question that you and Boaz never answered...Why do the religious, like Tebow, feel this constant need to use such platforms shove their views into so many aspects of our lives?
#65 | POSTED BY WHATSLEFT AT 2012-01-13 05:45 PM | REPLY | FLAG

He's expressing his thanks to God. Would you object if a player said, "i wanted to thank my mom and dad for providing me the opportunities I have had in life, and their support throughout the years," or "i want to think my offensive line for protecting me..." God is just another important player in his life.

you would like him forbidden from doing that because you don't believe that's o.k. well, he does, and it's his life and he can say what he likes, and nobody can shut him up about it. just like we couldn't prevent some guy saying that he doesn't believe in God, or that he's gay or whatever.

our founding fathers passed the establishment clause, and while it says Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, it also says "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

they were concerned about a lack of religious freedom, not attempting to express one's own beliefs. As for Tebow, I suspect he is also a fisher of men. If he helps to inspire, even religiously, then good for him.

Look at Romney's record, not his faith.

#55 | Posted by kanrei

sorry. that doesn't work for the reasons Donnerboy pointed out. People will take the person as a whole, including religious beliefs. If they believe something antithetical to the voter, then they can count on not getting that vote. I wouldn't vote for a Scientologist, for instance, even if that person appeared to have the best credentials otherwise.

The point...and the question that you and Boaz never answered...Why do the religious, like Tebow, feel this constant need to use such platforms shove their views into so many aspects of our lives?

#65 | Posted by Whatsleft

Would you ask the same question of a workplace Muslim, who visited his prayer rug during work breaks?

How does Tebows exercise of his beliefs, in any way, offend or disturb you? Are you that insecure in your own beliefs and feel threatened somehow?

Or are you just a sniveling, complaining little bitch that actually despises diversity?

Fact is (and I am sure the Founding Fathers would agree) a persons Faith (or lack thereof) should not even be a topic of discussion.

#66 | Posted by donnerboy

I'm not sure if I would say it like that, but...I'd say instead, 'a topic of debate'.....

The intent of the constitutional freedom of religion was not to control individual worshippers activities. It was to prevent the US from becoming a church-state, like the countries they had just left.

The fact that we obsess about and worry over the religious extremists is just further proof of how childish and insecure we are as a nation.

Meanwhile, our gov't and both parties are corrupt and no one seems to care. Squirrel!!!!

How the hell did Tebow enter the conversation??

Ah. The usual way. By someone injecting him into the conversation.

Did people get in such a tizzy over Reggie White?
Do people get in such a tizzy over Troy Cross-Myself-Before-And-After- Every-Play Polamalu?

Who cares? It's football. Nobody's shoving anything in anyone's face.
Sports media is to blame, here, for making this into ten times the story it deserves to be.
(And I'm low-balling.)

So fucking what? George Blanda wouldn't have been drafted to play football today either.

#41 | Posted by somoco

I'd take Blanda over Tebow.

Blanda was better than Stabler, and I think a lot of teams would like to have Stabler now.

And I'd take that guy with the square foot over Blanda for kicking field goals. So I'm saying I'm going Blanda just for the quarterbacking, not the placekicking.

How the hell did Tebow enter the conversation??

#73 | Posted by TheTom

Are you trying to invoke the separation of church and sports?

How the hell did Tebow enter the conversation??

Tebow time tonight is 8 p.m. on CBS

Broncos vs. Patriots

Cook up some good chili and hunker down in front of the tv

A

don't know how that "A" got in there

Care to explain that by using the constitution?

#34 | Posted by Sniper at 2012-01-13 11:41 AM |

I did. Next time try reading the full post.

#35 | Posted by kanrei

I am well aware of the first amendment and what it says. In plain english it says the government will NOT establish a religon. I guess if you desire 'no religon' as yours the in wesel words it does say freedom from.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The constitution states "no standing military"
Why don't we follow the constitution ?

Come on people you can read can't you?