Fallacy #1: The Founders Weren't Deists

Some of the first colonists of the nation for which the Constitution was written had been seeking to escape religious persecution.

The earliest settlers in the "new world" were not escaping religious persecution so much as trying to find a place where they could practice religious persecution of their own. The earliest colonies were almost all theocracies in which there was no such thing as freedom of religion.

Several hundred years later, when this new government was forming and the Constitution was being written, our founders saw how badly that went and how important religious freedom was. That's why they made a secular government.

The earliest settlers in the "new world" were not escaping religious persecution so much as trying to find a place where they could practice religious persecution of their own.

Too who, the Indians? The Pilgrims, who founded the colony of Plymouth, were "English Puritans" fleeing religious persecution, and among other things had a special "tax" put on them for not being members of the "State supported Church" The "Church of England"! This is common knowledge taught to every grade schooler.

Several hundred years later

LOL This was 1620. Holy crap....you really are uneducated.

Too [sic] who [sic], the Indians?

Well, let's see. Quakers, Catholics, and Baptists were all persecuted by the Puritans. This is well known and not disputed. The early settlements were bastions of religious intolerance. "Common knowledge taught to every grade schooler" is also often wrong. Much of what we teach children about our history is just American mythology.

LOL This was 1620. Holy crap....you really are uneducated.

I was thinking of the span of time between the early exploration and the Constitution, but if you want to nitpick I suppose I should have said something like "over a hundred years". For someone who seems to know nothing about the rampant religious persecution in these settlements, though, it's pretty bold of you to call me "uneducated". Perhaps you should do some research instead of blindly believing what you were taught in elementary school.

I and most people when talking about early America are referring to the original 13 Colonies, not settlements. When the Pilgrims came their were no other colonist to suppress, Why they came is also well known and as I stated. That was 1620. All of the Colonies had separation of Church and State provisions in the constitutions, though they may have supported one denomination or another. Except Massachusetts. But don't make the mistake that the exception is the rule and run babbling as if it is. LOL "Banned in Boston? is still an axiom for a reason. They still have strong Puritan influences there.

Going to watch "John Adams" now on HBO. I suggest you all do the same.

Yeah, it's strange that you brought up the "first colonists" who left England to "escape persecution", but when I pointed out that the first colonists were not in favor of freedom of religion you shift focus to 100+ years later. And still, even the 13 colonies before the Revolution had no guarantee of religious freedom. So, again, who is the uneducated person here? The one talking about colonial "constitutions" or the ones who actually seem to understand the religious situation of early America? Perhaps you need to read this guy's book.

Excuse me, then. I didn't think everyone would go off in so many tangents.

nd still, even the 13 colonies before the Revolution had no guarantee of religious freedom. So, again, who is the uneducated person here? The one talking about colonial "constitutions"

It was in their constitutions as I said, with one exception. It was the evolution of a conversation. Settlements to colonies......you guys are just being contentious in an effort to defend your misconception. Don't you ever listen to the gist and context of what is said, but only dissect a statement and use things out of context to berate. How do you ever "Get Smarter"? The sentance of my original post....

Some of the first colonists of the nation for which the Constitution was written

This article is about the founders and their faiths,... bur, Not the ones they choose to follow or the fact that they abandoned them, but merely the one they were born with, as if that was what they remained in their adult life... very misleading indeed, to sya the least, if not an outright lie. I was raised a Catholic, But I'm not a Catholic now, Some founders were self proclaimed deist, like Ethan Allen, and Franklin, others where raised Episcopalian like Jefferson and Washington but became deist. Being a Deist then simply meant someone who chose to abandon organized religion and did not practice any or worship in any one church, which was MOST of the founders belief. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind. Today we have millions who, technically could be called "deist" even though they were raised in some church, because they don't practice it anymore. So it it is not a "Fallacy" just a another Far-Right twist of facts. More argumentative claptrap.

The "colonies" had no constitutions. We're talking about the colonies, not the states. Once again, you started off talking about "first colonists" being here for religious freedom, so clearly you are the one with misconceptions. They were not here for religious freedom. They were here to practice their own form of religious persecution.

You keep muddying the water by trying to mix early colonies with early states as if they're the same thing. They're separated by over a hundred years. They're not the same! By the time the Constitution was written the people who lived here were not here escaping religious persecution. You seem to think not only that the first colonists were in favor of religious freedom, but that there was no gap in time between the first colonists and the Constitution. You're wrong. Why can't you admit it?

The "colonies" had no constitutions.

Live and learn then my friend.

Ordinance and Constitution for Council and Assembly in Virginia

24 July 1621, Jamestown 126--28

They can call that a constitution all they want, but it's really just a charter. It's not a constitution in the same sense as the US Constitution, which was the absolute law of the land. They were still subject to the King.

And interestingly I see nothing in that document about freedom of religion. So you're still wrong.

You said the colonies had no constitutions you were wrong.. but It's not the complete document...just a section.

They can call that a constitution all they want, but it's really just a charter.

Just lexical semantics. acknowledge it or not. I can't force you to. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

And interestingly I see nothing in that document about freedom of religion. So you're still wrong.

If it helps you maintain your delusion, unfortunately I can't link to the document, although I have read it. But this is about my veracity, not the truth. Regardless here are some other colonies...

Delaware 1701

Carolina Fundamental Constitutions 1669

One hundred and two. No person of any other church or profession shall disturb or molest any religious assembly.

Just a few to make my point.

You started out making blanket statements about "early colonists" and now you're just trying to find some colonists. If you think the early settlers of America in general were in favor of religious freedom then do some research on the Puritans (the ones you think came here to practice freedom of religion). They were not in favor of religious freedom. They came here to practice their own form of religious persecution, and anyone with any decent amount of historical knowledge about early America should know that. I think you do know that now, and you just refuse to admit that you had been misinformed about early America.

America was settled to be a Christian land. To be more precise, it was settled to be Protestant nation. Inhabitants of most colonies prior to the revolution were not interested in religious pluralism or tolerance. They wanted society based on Protestant principles, with a strong mingling of church and state and vigilant antagonism towards Catholicism. Almost all of the colonies tried some variant of state-supported religion and everyone one of those experiments failed. Perhaps the most important flair-ups of persecution came in a few Virginia counties, as they were witnessed by a thoroughly disgusted young James Madison. He and the other Founders looked at the wreckage of these experiments and concluded that official state religions led to oppression of minority religions and lethargy among the majority religions. (Source)

That's from the same author as this seed. It's the 3rd post in this series.

You also have to consider that there are various meanings of "religious freedom". Iraq and Afghanistan have sections of their constitutions claiming that they believe in religious freedom, but they also claim that their laws are based on Islam. You can't have both. That's why, despite their claims to support freedom of religion, people have been charged with converting from Islam to Christianity and they sought the death penalty (I don't know if any were upheld). I have little doubt that early colonies were similar. Their governments were heavily tied to religion, and you cannot have freedom of religion if you have a government run by religion. Even one of the "constitutions" you quote above doesn't have religious freedom if you're an atheist or a polytheist. Sorry, but that's not freedom of religion. That's freedom to believe what we believe with some small amount of flexibility. Not freedom.

The founders recognized that freedom of religion required secular government. The early colonists did not. That's the lesson they learned.

You started out making blanket statements about "early colonists" and now you're just trying to find some colonists.

Oh please... this is my last post, I have wasted enough time with the unreasonable obdurateness of you people. My post here states exsactly what I meant to say and I have been defending it with facts that you recusants refuse to acknowledge. Again and again. You can not rewrite history and return to imaginary, quixotic, past America that never was and never will be. Sorry if the Far-Right have lost all its credibility, this has been a excellent example as to why.

Stopped tracking this article to let it die the natural death as it deserves. rant on by yourself as the Far-Right have less and less who bother to listen to them, go figure.

Who are you calling "Far-Right"? Did you not see how every post here has been in favor of separation of church and state and opposed to religious persecution? Did you somehow get the impression that spiffie and I think that America should have a religious government? WTF?

Your first post (the one you conveniently linked to) was the one that got it all wrong. You kept trying to clarify and kept getting confused and that's why this discussion kept going. You keep trying to insist that America has always been about religious freedom despite ample evidence to the contrary. You just refuse to acknowledge that the Puritans who first came here were just as bad as the people they left behind. I don't know why you won't acknowledge that, but it's not possible to dispute that given the evidence available.

I know you claim/pretend to be a Lefty, you know that most Democrats and especially Liberals regard that term as derogatory due to the negative connotations it carries with Marxism and related ideologies, or no? Forgive me for my doubts, but I look at your posts and articles you seed in your columns and they are the erroneously perceptions of Liberal positions as veiwed from the right, or show the "Left" in a negative light. I never believed Joe Lieberman was a Democrat either, and Adam you're a card caring Ron Paul, Libertarian!

I am, in fact, a Ron Paul libertarian (lower-case l). That doesn't make me a "Far-Right" conservative. I am pro-choice, anti-war, very pro separation of church and state, pro gay marriage, pro legalization of drugs, pro doctor-assisted suicide, pro stem cell research, etc., etc. Those are not far-right positions. In fact, they're often branded far-left positions. Both "lefties" and "righties" reject me and try to claim that I'm on the other side. The truth is that libertarianism doesn't fit on this silly 1-dimensional "right"/"left" axis that people keep trying to use. If you had to put me anywhere on that axis then it would be in the center. Yet neither side wants to tolerate someone like me, and so they both just pretend I'm an extremist on the other side. It gets really old.

Also, this Ron Paul supporter fully plans on voting for Obama in November. I may even tolerate Clinton if it will help avoid a McCain presidency. Does that sound "Far Right" to you? Give me a break.

spiffie, this seed is a good example. The title says it all, a blank statement that is not true. Some were desist, others were not. I point this out and you deny the facts I show. You consistently make dumb arguments that reinforce the Rights arguments.

... am pro-choice, anti-war, very pro separation of church and state

Then what is with you denying that the colonies were also for separation?, seems contradictory. I'm against gun control...so what. So were the founders... as for a libertarians not being on the right, sorry but I'm 55 years old and was familiar personally with some of those involved at the formation of the Libertarian movement in 1971-75. Spoiled rotten rich brat antidemocratic, sons of republicans, who hated their parents, pretending to be sudo-intellectual hippies, and throwing tantrums and whinnying when they didn't get everything NOW.

From the New American Oxford Dictionaries: The adherents of libertarianism believe that private morality is not the state's affair and that therefore activities such as drug use and prostitution, which arguably harm no one but the participants, should not be illegal. Libertarianism shares elements with anarchism, although it is generally associated more with the political right (chiefly in the U.S.). Unlike traditional liberalism, however, libertarianism lacks a concern with social justice.

You obviously didn't see the other seed:

Fallacy #2 The Founders Weren't Conservative Christians

You also must have ignored comment #3 above, which talks about how fair this guy is, and also that the important point isn't what the founders believed but what they did (which is establish a secular government, not a religious one). It seems to me that you read the headline, skipped the article, ignored all the comments, and then just went blazing in assuming that it's a typical right-wing pro-religion article. Now you've made a complete ass of yourself. Way to go.

Then what is with you denying that the colonies were also for separation?

Because they were! Even the ones you quote had religious governments! You don't have a problem with me. You have a problem with historical reality. Reality is that the early colonies were in favor of religion in government. Madison and Jefferson et al. saw the huge problems this caused and decided that the new government formed by the Constitution should be secular. I.e., they corrected the problems found in the early colonies. Even then they met resistance, and that's why the Bill of Rights did not apply to the states until much later.

As for your rant about libertarianism, that's ahrdly worth responding to. I will say that the definition you gave sounds just fine to me, and yet the positions it mentions (legalization of drugs and prostitution and removing the issue of morality from government) are definitively liberal positions. That's the fallacy of trying to label libertarians "right" or "left". It's not going to work. Either way you're ignoring half the story.

Perhaps my suspicion of you being a mole is an unfounded one spiffie, but I have it none the less. Adam is another story. Try the NV Group, Conservative Coalition Forces, their motto is: Conservatives, neo-cons, right-wingers, traditionalists, mainstream libertarians...UNITE!

You'll fit RIGHT in.

Dan, you obviously don't know me at all. You're trying to apply labels to me that are absolutely laughable. To say that I would "fit in" with a neo-con is actually something I find insulting. That's how poorly you know me. I actually grimaced when my voting card was stamped "Republican" because I am so opposed to the Republican party. So what the @!$%# is wrong with you that you would basically accuse me of being "right-wing"? You are so far off it's just absolutely unbelievable.

I agree with most of that, but I do think that it remains relevant what our founding fathers intended because they had good reasons for laying out our government the way that they did. Given that they created a secular government we should be asking why they did so. Pretending that they intended to create a religious government is not only historically inaccurate, but it prevents us from thinking about the problems they were trying to avoid by creating a secular government. If we ignore what they did then we are doomed to make the same mistakes they had already learned and corrected.

i'll grant that, but i also think it's more important to interpret the constitution against today's needs and today's problems. it can be important and worthwhile to harken back to the intentions of the founding fathers in order to prevent our policies from being hijacked towards special interests. on the other hand, claiming association with our founding fathers is something that everyone from the KKK to the catholic league will engage in, in an effort to justify their beliefs. so i think it's more important to make relevant the philosophical discussions concerning liberty, justice, human and civil rights, etc., than it is to try to make comparisons between the extraneous writings of our founding fathers and the law they wrote.

I think we have to be careful when we explicitly choose to "interpret" the constitution to meet new needs. This implies that we are deliberately going against the intent of the document. If we think the document needs to be modified then we should modify it.

In some cases you could argue that it was meant to be flexible, and I think that's valid, but in other cases it's pretty explicit. You can't just decide to ignore parts of it because you feel that they're antiquated. That goes against the whole point of having a constitution as the ultimate foundation of your laws.

In this particular case, though, I think the founders' intent (to form a secular government) is even more important in today's context than it was at the time, so it doesn't really change my opinion of what we should do at all. In other cases I think people have been too quick to use the "reinterpret until I'm happy" approach to get away with things that really should have required amendments. I'm thinking specifically of how much extra power the federal government has gained over time through ignoring constitutional limits.

i guess what i mean when i say 'interpret' is just the act of using the constitution as a guide to writing specific legislation and policy. a law created to address a problem in 1875 can be just as constitutionally consistent and valid as a law created in 1975 to address the way the problem has evolved can be.

In this particular case, though, I think the founders' intent (to form a secular government) is even more important in today's context than it was at the time,

i agree completely. thats why i think picking apart different statements to try to imply that the founders meant other things beyond what they wrote into policy is a shallow process and is only a source of distraction. references to "god" and "providence" dont in any way trump the actual wording of the constitution.

on the other hand, i have extreme doubts as to the power and effectiveness of a constitution which has allowed, passively or otherwise, the kinds of violations we've seen over the past 50-60 years. most fundamentally, the social and political dynamics and atmosphere of the US today are drastically different than they were 200 years ago. and the way that current politicians and social theorists are dealing with, and have access to, the checks & balances and transparency & oversight critical to a democratic nation, has become largely useless.

which means that the details of the intent of the founders is, perhaps, even less important than it used to be. the idea that a 200-yr-old document is mostly outdated shouldnt come as a surprise to anyone. and unless we want to start treating the constitution like the bible, we ought to show some respect for the more general principles the nation was founded on as opposed to the details of how this issue was weighed against that one. getting back to the more basic principles would be a good idea.