Those are exactly the problems with anti-gun people, as well as with anti-hunters, its true that the most annoying thing with them is that they will never even try to learn about the subject they hate. I have a few people in my school who are dead set against hunting and guns, but they will never listen to you try to explain those things to them. and yes one of the most dangerous things to humans are people texting/talking on a cell phone while driving.

Too right unfortunately. Anti-firearm people are so irrational that Anti-firearm Psychosis ought to be in the DSM.

Speaking of idiots and menaces to human life....I was following a moron talking on a cell phone this morning on the way to work (Yes, I work and yes, I'm paying for our Teleprompter's folly) who swerved into the adjacent lane 3 times in about 2 miles. And yes, he had an Obama/Biden sticker on his Subaru.

The analysis of gun-haters is sadly right on target. Thorazine might help.

Once again we hear a rant from Petzal that makes me dumber for having read it.
Every person who is scared of or uneducated about guns is not the left-wing anti-gun political machine you make them out to be. Someone who has never seen a game warden before in his tan and olive uniform does stick out. So instead of helping someone understand who this person is, you have to make a fool of them publically. Stay classy.

I tell’ya, people are so ignorant and stupid it’s not even funny!

Ask this very simple question.

What Government entity is responsible for your personnel protection?

Answer!

There is no Government entity responsible for your personnel protection!

And for those who do agree there is no Government entity responsible for your personnel protection stand around with their nose in there armpits not challenging lawmakers on this subject!!

Stupid ignorant people
HERE”S YOUR SIGN!

“But I don't want to defend myself.”
-reportedly uttered by a Brady Law supporter

curtism1234, I don't think that's what he said. He did say that every anti gunner has certain things in common and from my experience he's 98% right. And he was at a meeting about gun control, it stands to good reason that if someone was there and is freaking out about a person in some type of uniform having a gun, they were not on our side.

PS +1 for WA Mtnhunter is right!

As Beekeeper noted in a post, more and more people are growing up in urban or suburban areas with no tie to the outdoors. The only guns they are exposed to are those in their neighborhoods, on the boob tube, and at the movies. Their reality is guns associated with violence and bad people. They also only hear what their peers, teachers, and families are passing on to them. Many times the truths are skewed. Also an attitude that someone else will provide and protect. It's very unfortunate but the numbers are increasing. We have a lot of educating to do.

Anyone heard more about the study linking reduced sperm count and soy beans? Don't go panicking ... or rejoicing ... I don't know it has been proven one way or another, but wouldn't that be a slap if true ... vegans might just not perpetuate as well at meat eaters, eventually reducing their numbers.

To curtism1234,

There are a few things I'd like to point out in your post...

1."Once again we hear a rant from Petzal that makes me dumber for having read it."-Find another blog. Problem solved.

2."Someone who has never seen a game warden before in his tan and olive uniform does stick out." -Yes, they do, and I believe that's the point. The key word you used was "uniform". If I saw someone for the fist time in an olive and tan "uniform" ,with assorted patches, who is packing heat, I would like to think I could figure it out.

3. "So instead of helping someone understand who this person is, you have to make a fool of them publically. Stay classy."- This was the best one. As stated by Mr. Petzal,"Finally I turned around and pointed out that the pistol-packer was a sworn peace officer and required to carry a gun and please shut up." -Now, based on that statement, I believe Mr. Petzal did inform the gentleman as to who and what the officer was. And if you consider that instance to be public humiliation, or the mention of the situation on this blog for that matter, then you are way off course. Mr. Petzal didn't (as far as I know) stand up at the meeting and call this man dirty names, nor did he mention the gentleman's name on this blog.

I'd also like to add that many of the anti-gun people I have met seem to think that guns are living things, born to kill innocent people, and for that they are inherently evil.

007 is right and I would like to add either join the NRA or upgrade your membership. Politicians fear a bigger more powerful NRA.

That's right Del, the NRA is all about fear.

Vegans are the most comical lot of people. Theyskoff at meat because it means a living thing died to make your meal, but won't agree that a plant or head of lettuce is a living organism. Its so much fun to remind them of that.

I agree w/you Dave, well put.

Hey Walt, you ever hear a carrot scream when you throw it in boiling water? It's horrible--eating vegetables is inhumane I tell you! The vegans should all go on hunger strikes. Save the vegetables!

DEP, you forgot one attribute common among all gun-haters. Gun-haters lack logical thinking processes and reasoning capability - mostly the result of or causing the hysteria you reference.

Hey curtism 1234 I would like to know what side you are on? I belive if a lawbiding person wants to carry a gun than they should be able to. Are you afraid of honest people who carry guns? I dont know about you but I still like the idea of living in a free country, do you? And no I am not a member of the NRA but I do belive in my freedom as a USA citizen.

I think Mr. Petzal is right about the anti-gun people. I know there are people who think all guns should be rounded up and dumped in the lake,(not very good for the environment but that's another issue). These people expect others (i.e police or military)to protect them. Their arguement is "that's what they are PAID to do" Well, guess what? the police can't be everywhere the bad guys are because they don't know where or when the bad guys are going to threaten their lives. And let's not forget that because of budget problems, there aren't enough police. So if you can't pay for a personal bodyguard don't expect the police or anyone else to save you, it's YO YO baby.(Y're On Your Own).
Anti-gun groups refuse to allow stories or publicity of anyone enjoying themselves with a firearm or heaven forbid! some one who has a gun saving a person from the bad guys.
The only way to save our gun rights is to talk rationally to the people who don't know or don't care about the enjoyment or security we feel when we use our firearms in a legal and acceptable way. I will ask friends or a family member to go out to a range and show them that guns are not evil, they are not capable of emotion. Guns are fun either shooting or hunting with them!

Want to know why the question

What Government entity is responsible for your personnel protection?

Is never asked?

They’re too afraid they may make someone angry!

Infortunately this is right. It is sad that people do not want to look at the FACTS of the issue and STATISTICS. STATISTICS do not lie. They are based on actual events in real life. However most of anti-gun/hunter people are not interested in hearing the facts about the situation. It is to bad that people can't be more open minded and learn a thing or two every once in a while.

everything said there is true i work with a couple of guys that are anti guns and anti hunting and every time hunting is brought up or a firearm is discussed they are almost offended by it but what i dont get is i have a liscense to hunt and have taken the classes to get that liscense and have been properly taught how to handle a gun but im still a bad person in their eyes because i do so i dont think thats right

I think curtism1234 is getting paid to keep the blog lively. Don't know who would pay for that but that's my guess.

I have antigunners in my family of origin. Had one out for a visit and dragged her to the "gun room" to see my guns -- many of which were our father's previously. This sister of mine pretty much idolized our Dad and it was only my constant insistance that "she should see Daddy's favorites" that got her "philosophically OK" with "just looking". I grabbed the 94 Winchester and out of habit cranked open the action towards her view to see that it was clear and safe as I was going to hand it to her. With trepidation she clumsily took hold of it then asked with a tone of mild panic, "It's not loaded is it?!?!" I laughed out loud and declared that for someone so against guns she really knew nothing about them...

I was existing in New York's Weschester County during all the hub-bub that resulted in the Clinton Gun Ban of '94.
I remember one news clip in particular ... I think it took place in the House Chamber in Albany. There was a long table with a 'representative' gun collection on it.The guy doing the presentaion picks up a Ruger Mini14(methinks) and attempt to hand it to Naomi Matasow(one of our Westchester Representatives) for inspection. Well ol Naomi recoils from it as though it were a cobra. This here was one of those charged with determining the technical specifications of those rifles on the banned weapon list ... right? It could have been some kids Super-Hoser for all Naomi knew ... it's banned, next .

It was just silly and phoney ... but law?

As I watch television, or listen to the talk radio shows, or read blogs its clear that as American we certainly believe in our right to express our opinions. That opinion may not be based on facts, but we have the RIGHT to express it. This seems to give us some sense of value or importance. Holding people accountable for having facts before they express their views is seen as "discriminatory".
As we see in the news every day, the media claims their job is just to report the news so it's ok for them to send pretty reporters into situations they know nothing about. Our enemies in the shooting/hunting/firearm world are ignorance and arrogance. Sadly in our own sport both live with us. The survival of our interests is a marathon, not a sprint. Keep educating ourselves and the politicians and we will live to shoot another day.

When you encounter a gun-hater, it is better to TRY to educate them politely, rather than "recoil" and just keep quiet, or get into a yelling match. This, in a way takes away their "ammunition" to use in arguments against gun owners. Of course there are always going to be those who are so close-minded that logic delivered from God himself would have no effect.

I read an Op-ed in my local (leftwing) newspaper a few years ago. It was called "Taking a Shot at Liking Guns". This gun-hating woman wanted to educated herself about these things she dispised so she went to a pistol range and took some shooting lessons, ended up loving it, and had the guts to admit it to her (leftwing) audience. Unfortunately this is the exception and not commonplace. Good post Dave.

The largest problem you have trying to "educate" a gun hater is dealing with their "superior" faulty logic which is purely based on radical emotions. They believe we are primitive while they are advanced and forward thinking. Look at The President (I respect the office, not the man), when he made that guns and religion speech during the campaign, a emotional response hidden in an air of superior intellect.When you peal back the ivy league camouflage, all you see is fear of something that is not understood. We are then dismissed as neanderthals that do not see their "truth"- to be replaced by the "evolved".
As to the Vegans and their ilk I like to remind them that their fields of soy soon to be curd can only exist if animals are killed. How? well if that land was not fields it would be natural habitat, the animals that once lived there were displaced(killed), and they continue to kill wildlife to maintain those fields, organic or not.
You can not live in a vacuum. Their real problem is that they live too far away from death and so do not see it, ancient hunters as well as those who hunt today respect life. So there you go.

Great article an mostly good comments except for 2 misguided air heads.

If those anti-gunners don't want a gun, then fine. Hopefully they will find out the hard way why concealed carry is awesome.

"anyone who thinks the republican party has a monopoly on rightiousness ain't watched the news much in the past few years"

Good shot, Bella!

I thought about this subject a bit more...it's not about "convincing" people to accept or understand our hunting/shooting hobbies it's about whether people want a government that dictates to them if we CAN OR NOT!
Think governments that disarm people stop only at this right? YES is't a RIGHT given to us by our constitution.
I need a beer...

Sometimes you really get it right and this is one of them. Too bad your platform isn't where more people can read it. Keep preaching! The pastor Z41

from curtism1234:
"Every person who is scared of or uneducated about guns is not the left-wing anti-gun political machine you make them out to be. Someone who has never seen a game warden before in his tan and olive uniform does stick out. So instead of helping someone understand who this person is, you have to make a fool of them publically."

I've come to the conclusion that the anti crowd does a fine job of making fools of themselves just fine on their own and needs little help in that regard.
100's of people can be killed by Cars, 1000's by preventable disease and accidents in the home (bathtubs kill more than guns) but if one person get's shot they shriek for days about it. Go Figure.

Vegans also irk me, as said before they never will admit that plants are also living things, or that the farms that grow those veggies once were woodlands that gave homes to countless animals that were killed to make room for the farmland.
And next time you see a vegan eat Jello remind them that the gelatin used to make jello comes from the joints of dead animals, preferably while they have a big mouthful of the stuff! Could be fun!

This one was too easy Dave. Sort of like throwing a firecracker in a hornets nest.

Complete ignorance, hysteria and total mistrust of anyone who owns guns or advocates their use. That about sums up the anti-gunners, but I would add that under the Clinton and obummer administrations I get a queasy feeling that there is a more sinister motive at work, one that starts with disarming the American public. What else can explain the moves to destroy military brass, the anti-gun appointments to the administration and Supreme Court, and the blatant lies and generated mass hysteria about "90% of the guns used by Mexican drug lords come from the U.S." Not to mention that the current administration is taking steps to get us all under the new world order umbrella of the U.N.?

Dave, Your discription of the the character in the row behind you goes to prove the old adage, " there are more horses asses than there are horses ". They only change if they survive a mugging.

That should have been Pittman-Robinson...

Bella;

Are you serious? Are you really comparing an unborn child to a home intruder. That is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. How come every time you post on this blog you insist on spreading your "dung" across this website. You need to calm down, turn off the "Communist News Network" or MSNBC, put away your Bush voodoo doll and come to your senses. The topic of the blog was anti-gun people, not your gay pride! I disagree with some of what the Republicans do but the left is hell-bent of forever changing our country for the worse. A list of anti-gun politicians would include Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer, Michael Bloomberg, Nancy Pelosi, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Ray Nagin, Joseph Biden and Emperor Obama. Guess what they all have in common, Genius; That's right, all blue donkeys. People will always disagree on complex social issues but being a left-wing pro-gunner would be comparable to me being a beef cattle farmer and a peta member. And for all of you bashing the NRA, you need to get on board. Wether or not you agree with their tactics, they are our strongest ally.

Hmm that a first,.. sent a post and it didnt go in ,.
Must have been language ,. or possoibly contect,..
or both yuk yuk
Oh well it was good one if I do say so ,.
I maybe gained some ground with a gun hating plastic surgeon ,.. with a great behind !!

yohan-
Probably your yuk yuk. Everyone is tired of your illogical humor and stupid misspellings.

Bella
wow that is a new low on the amount of garbage that you can spew out of that little mind of yours. You think a baby that is helpless is fine to kill as you please. I can't figure out how anyone can be so worried about the enviroment, but not give a f---- about a innocent baby. You obviously have no morals. Talk about the issues at hand and quit saying bullshit that has nothing to do with gun ownership and the second amendment. I ask you this, what amendments says you can kill an unborn child?
Killing a person in self defense is far from the same thing as abortion. I know that killing innocent people is wrong and that is what abortion is. Capital punishment is the killing of someone proven guilty of violent crimes, and far from abortion. My wife is a registered nurse, and works in the maturnity ward. She has never seen any women die from pregnancy, and only a few high risk pregnancys. People who can't have children would love to adopt the baby, and there is no reason not to let them. Why should a women have the right to choose, a man doesn't. There is a higher power out there and when I meet him I won't be without sins, but I can say that killing of babies was not my doing.

Beekeeper-
You, sir are both a wise, and well spoken man. I take my hat off to you.
crm

MLH,
you need to grow a pair and stop worrying about what people will think of you and stand up for what is right. I am so sick and tired of people being afraid of what others will think if they speak up, crm and others are right to defend anything that some of the left wing radicals on this sight think they can spew out and not have any of us catch on. there is never a good reason for letting a wrong go unchallenged.

MLH
I guess I figure that is someone calls me a radical person because I beleive in religion and am against abortion I can say what I feel back to them. I stated earlier today in this post that abortion and this had nothing to do with one another, but she kept on spouting nonsense. Now I don't think my rebuttle is in need of your criticism.

Well, I hate to tell all of you this, but the NRA isn't the great organization you think it is. My brother-in-law was an NRA Endowment member. After his wife had an affair with the church pastor, he committed suicide. The only insurance he had was through the NRA, and the NRA refused to pay because it was a suicide . . . notwithstanding the fact that virtually ALL insurance policies are considered "incontestable" after they have been in force for two years. Wayne LaPierre would not even give me the courtesy of a reply to my letter to him on this subject. So the NRA gets NO MORE donations from this NRA Life Member. I would resign--and still might--but I hold out hope that LaPierre and his ilk will be out some day.

I have never seen any life Insurance Policy pay for a suicide. I am pretty sure that they all say they won't pay for suicides.

ChevJames
No disrespect meant whatsoever. I have insurance through the NRA and it states that the coverage is accidental death insurance. Suicides are not considered accidental death, so no life insurance that pays on accidental deaths will pay for suicide. Very sorry for your loss.

How did he commit suicide and subsequently remarry????

MOST insurance policies are "incontestable" after two years. The reason? Because insurance companies were tempted to say that so many deaths were suicides. You wouldn't want to take out a life insurance policy on yourself, and then not have it pay after you, say, fall off your roof . . . you wouldn't want the insurance company claiming that you jumped! But in any event, I was owed a reply by Mr. LaPierre. So we have a situation in which he doesn't answer his mail, and I don't send the NRA any more donations. Wish it didn't have to be that way.

"Don't attempt to make your personal morality law because you wouldn't like say Scientology forced on you."

That is as concise a statement of the constitutional conventioners' rationale for the separation of church and state as was ever voiced in these blogs. My hat's off to you!

No offense to the berieved, but there should be NO payout for suicide. Zero. I't's not a business decision. i'll take the minuses.

rabbitpolice
well put

Sad story ChevJames, I will say a prayer for your family..I lived thru a similar nightmare,chose to not end it with suicide, but I understand the emotional pain your brother went thru. Anyway, sorry to hear of your tragic loss.

he killed him self not the gun,if there would of been a bridge there instead of a gun he might of jumped off it,sorry to here it but to many people use a gun for a excuse all the time to out law them in some way or another, how many people get killed with knives all the time???cant out law our silver where now can we or we would be eating with our fingers

CRM 30-06 ISH
Been a littel busy ,.. but I can see ,. mission acomplished ,.. where your concerned.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.

Always a few self appointed right fighters,. who sooner than later (most times) let a difference of opinion become a challenge to thier existance.
So they just can't help crawlling out from under the nearest rock in order rail about that special something which is cross grain to thier thinking

As previoulsy stated in other posts ,. I just absolulty love to compete in buisness against guys like you.

Given enough rope guys like you ( if you are guy,.. cause truthfully you sound like a woman to me) hang themselves every last time ,. Or (and this is fun part) give me the opportunity to assist them,. without their even knowing ,.. until the lightbulb finally goes on YUK YUK .

So MZ or Mrs 30-06 ,.try a midol it may help you control what strongly appears to be a severly hormonal driven temper

By the way ,. I do not agree with your latest nemisess Bella ,. but it also clear your so busy trying to be right you can't see the woods for the trees.
From the sound of things likley a career military under achiever this does not suprise

Apparently hopelessly lost in pursuit of diatribe, dogma, accuzation , retribution and recrimination,..and the fight to be right,.. and not worth more of my time.

Yall have a nice day now YUK YUK

Well crm 30-06ish thats two,.. that didnt make it ,.

Will try again more carfully ,.
Unfortunatly pervious post that didnt make it really said it.
Thusly this: or if you prefer,.
To witt:

You appear to be a very angry man sir ,. there is no knowing for certian why but I recognize your profile from being in Buisness for 40+ years ,..and yes I did fire a coupel rounds for effect once i saw you your head sticking up out of the grass ( figuratively speking of course)
Didnt realize it would be so easy ,.. more like shooting fish in abrel to be honest
But I think it safe to say mission accomplished in your regard .Which is to say with your last post in my own mind I am satisfied with the idea that what I suspect is correct

There are people in the world who cannot help but take a differece of opinion and turn it into a challenge to thier existance.

Which results in all kinds of mindless acuzation retribution and recrimination ,. not to mention diatribe and doggma debate .

I do not however believe it is worth more of my time to toy with you. Some games are just too easy,.
It has become apparen this is one of those games

Yall have a nice day now YUL YUK

Have you considered midol or prozac ?

Once again, more liberal talk from bella. The fact remains that the vast majority of our founding fathers were devout christians, If you deny that you don't know much about anything. Why is it that all the founding documents have God and endowed by our Creator with certain inalienably rights among these life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Why, if they were not Christians and wanted nothing to do with religion as two of you claim did they word them that way. Just because one person was Jewish and some other religions does that all of a sudden make it not a christian nation? It does not, It is just you grasping for straws. What about the pilgrims and the first thanksgiving. Have you ever read William Bradford's diary? You go read that and then come tell me this country was not founded on biblical principles. George Washington when he was praying in Valley Forge? No that was written by some right wing wacko who didn't have anything better to do. That couldn't have been what he was really doing. Um, sorry he was a christian, yes I know he was a Mason too. Despite that he was no doubt a christian. Abraham Lincoln and the Gettysburg address, I can go on and on with these examples of devout christians who were responsible for founding and leading this country.

dave the bowhunter,
yall is about the most common word here in the South. Everybody says it, it doesn't have to be in the dictionary.

i know they say it but it aint a word ,just like aint isnt a word but every body here uses aint to

http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1650.htm

Oh, another thing, you seem to think that if Jefferson thought that way than everyone did. Nope not buying that one, He has answered to God for what he said.

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies."

Benjamin Franklin, in Toward The Mystery

"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;"
James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt

"Revelation, therefore, cannot be applied to anything done upon earth, of which man himself is the actor or the witness; and consequently all the historical and anecdotal parts of the Bible, which is almost the whole of it, is not within the meaning and compass of the word revelation, and, therefore, is not the word of God."

-Thomas Paine, The Age of Reason, Part 1, Section 4

"That Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence, and therefore all Men have an equal natural and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society ought to be favored or established by Law, in Preference to others." -- George Mason

Robert A. Rutland, The Papers of George Mason, Vol. 3, p. 1071, 1119

"Jefferson is the one person that all you anti christian people go to."

By the way, Rabbitpol, you've made an error here. I'm not anti-christian. I'm just not willing to accept that evangelical christians should be allowed to make their faith the basis for legislation. I'm on the side of the founders, who (wisely) did not explicitly or implicitly codify christianity as the basis for US governance.

5th try ,.. toned down still more
crm 30-06 ,..have you lost your prescription ? YUK YUK

The lady who was the spokes person for PETA and the anti gun crowd in Maine spoke at every available function about the evils of firearms and the lowlifes that used them. About three years of being the most vocal person you could imagine, she went to a local gun shop and screamed at the owner because she had to wait to purchase a handgun. Finally was cleared to get the gun, picked it up, went home and shot herself. I believe that people who constantly preach against the evils of firearms are emotionally disabled. Non that I know personally have what any of us would consider normal lives. I know longer pamper these people. When confronted I give them both bbls, no holding back. The timid never win anything!

From the book, Original Intent, The Courts, the Constitution and Religion. pg. 125
"Today the terms atheist, agnostic, and deist have been used together so often that their meanings have almost become synonymous. In fact, many dictionaries list these words as synonyms. Those who advance the notion that this was the belief system of the Founders often publish information attemption to prove that the Founders were irreligious. Some of the quotes they set forth include: This would be the best of all possible worlds if there were no religion in it. John Adams the government of he United States is in no sense founded on the Christian religion. George Washington
I disbelieve all holy men and holy books. Thomas paine. Are these statements accurate? Did these prominent founders truly repudiate religion? An answer will be found by an examination of the sources of the above statements. The John Adams quote is taken from a letter he wrote to Thomas Jefferson on April 19, 1817, a conversation between two ministers that Adams had known. Seventy years ago Lemuel Bryant was my parish priest, and Joseph Cleverly my Latin schoolmaster. Lemuel was a jocular and liberal scholar and divine. Joseph a scholar and a gentleman the parson and the pedagogue lived much together, but were eternally disputing about government and religion. One day when the schoolmaster had been more than commonly fanatical and declared " it he were a monarch he would have but one religion in his dominions" the parson coolly replied, you would be the best man in the world if you had no religion. Lamenting these types of petty disputes, Adams declared to Jefferson: Twenty timws in the course of my late reading have I been on the point of breaking out, " this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it! But in this exclamation I would have been a fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean hell. This is Just one example of quotes being taken out of context. I don't have the time or the space for the other two. You see that you are quite wrong about the founding fathers.

John Adams
Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Second President of the United States

[I]t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If "Thou shalt not covet," and "Thou shalt not steal," were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1851), Vol. VI, p. 9.)

John Quincy Adams

Sixth President of the United States

The law given from Sinai was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code; it contained many statutes . . . of universal application-laws essential to the existence of men in society, and most of which have been enacted by every nation which ever professed any code of laws.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams, to His Son, on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), p. 61.)

There are three points of doctrine the belief of which forms the foundation of all morality. The first is the existence of God; the second is the immortality of the human soul; and the third is a future state of rewards and punishments. Suppose it possible for a man to disbelieve either of these three articles of faith and that man will have no conscience, he will have no other law than that of the tiger or the shark. The laws of man may bind him in chains or may put him to death, but they never can make him wise, virtuous, or happy.

(Source: John Quincy Adams, Letters of John Quincy Adams to His Son on the Bible and Its Teachings (Auburn: James M. Alden, 1850), pp. 22-23.)

Samuel Adams

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

[N]either the wisest constitution nor the wisest laws will secure the liberty and happiness of a people whose manners are universally corrupt.

(Source: William V. Wells, The Life and Public Service of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, & Co., 1865), Vol. I, p. 22, quoting from a political essay by Samuel Adams published in The Public Advertiser, 1749.)

Fisher Ames

Framer of the First Amendment

Our liberty depends on our education, our laws, and habits . . . it is founded on morals and religion, whose authority reigns in the heart, and on the influence all these produce on public opinion before that opinion governs rulers.

(Source: Fisher Ames, An Oration on the Sublime Virtues of General George Washington (Boston: Young & Minns, 1800), p. 23.)

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime & pure, [and] which denounces against the wicked eternal misery, and [which] insured to the good eternal happiness, are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments.

(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, The Life and Correspondence of James McHenry (Cleveland: The Burrows Brothers, 1907), p. 475. In a letter from Charles Carroll to James McHenry of November 4, 1800.)

Oliver Ellsworth

Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court

[T]he primary objects of government are the peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support: and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important. . . . [T]he legislature, charged with the great interests of the community, may, and ought to countenance, aid and protect religious institutions—institutions wisely calculated to direct men to the performance of all the duties arising from their connection with each other, and to prevent or repress those evils which flow from unrestrained passion.

(Source: Connecticut Courant, June 7, 1802, p. 3, Oliver Ellsworth, to the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut)

Benjamin Franklin

Signer of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence

[O]nly a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters.

(Source: Benjamin Franklin, The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, p. 297, April 17, 1787. )

I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that "except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it." I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing governments by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest.

I therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service.

(Source: James Madison, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, Max Farrand, editor (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1911), Vol. I, pp. 450-452, June 28, 1787.)

* For more details on this quote, click here.

Thomas Jefferson

Signer of the Declaration of Independence and Third President of the United States

Give up money, give up fame, give up science, give the earth itself and all it contains rather than do an immoral act. And never suppose that in any possible situation, or under any circumstances, it is best for you to do a dishonorable thing, however slightly so it may appear to you. Whenever you are to do a thing, though it can never be known but to yourself, ask yourself how you would act were all the world looking at you, and act accordingly. Encourage all your virtuous dispositions, and exercise them whenever an opportunity arises, being assured that they will gain strength by exercise, as a limb of the body does, and that exercise will make them habitual. From the practice of the purest virtue, you may be assured you will derive the most sublime comforts in every moment of life, and in the moment of death.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, DC: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. 5, pp. 82-83, in a letter to his nephew Peter Carr on August 19, 1785.)

The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of mankind.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. XV, p. 383.)

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

Richard Henry Lee

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

It is certainly true that a popular government cannot flourish without virtue in the people.

(Source: Richard Henry Lee, The Letters of Richard Henry Lee, James Curtis Ballagh, editor (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1914), Vol. II, p. 411. In a letter to Colonel Mortin Pickett on March 5, 1786.)

James McHenry

Signer of the Constitution

[P]ublic utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures. The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability and usefulness. In vain, without the Bible, we increase penal laws and draw entrenchments around our institutions. Bibles are strong entrenchments. Where they abound, men cannot pursue wicked courses, and at the same time enjoy quiet conscience.

(Source: Bernard C. Steiner, One Hundred and Ten Years of Bible Society Work in Maryland, 1810-1920 (Maryland Bible Society, 1921), p. 14.)

Jedediah Morse

Patriot and "Father of American Geography"

To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them.

(Source: Jedidiah Morse, A Sermon, Exhibiting the Present Dangers and Consequent Duties of the Citizens of the United States of America (Hartford: Hudson and Goodwin, 1799), p. 9.)

William Penn

Founder of Pennsylvania

[I]t is impossible that any people of government should ever prosper, where men render not unto God, that which is God's, as well as to Caesar, that which is Caesar's.

(Source: Fundamental Constitutions of Pennsylvania, 1682. Written by William Penn, founder of the colony of Pennsylvania.)

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

No free government now exists in the world, unless where Christianity is acknowledged, and is the religion of the country.

(Source: Pennsylvania Supreme Court, 1824. Updegraph v. Commonwealth; 11 Serg. & R. 393, 406 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1824).)

Benjamin Rush

Signer of the Declaration of Independence

The only foundation for a useful education in a republic is to be laid in religion. Without this there can be no virtue, and without virtue there can be no liberty, and liberty is the object and life of all republican governments.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), p. 8.)

We profess to be republicans, and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government, that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible. For this Divine Book, above all others, favors that equality among mankind, that respect for just laws, and those sober and frugal virtues, which constitute the soul of republicanism.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical (Philadelphia: Printed by Thomas and William Bradford, 1806), pp. 93-94.)

By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]

(Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)

Remember that national crimes require national punishments, and without declaring what punishment awaits this evil, you may venture to assure them that it cannot pass with impunity, unless God shall cease to be just or merciful.

(Source: Benjamin Rush, An Address to the Inhabitants of the British Settlements in America Upon Slave-Keeping (Boston: John Boyles, 1773), p. 30.)

Joseph Story

Supreme Court Justice

Indeed, the right of a society or government to [participate] in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state and indispensable to the administrations of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion—the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them.

(Source: Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1847), p. 260, §442.)

George Washington

"Father of Our Country"

While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?

(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

[T]he [federal] government . . . can never be in danger of degenerating into a monarchy, and oligarchy, an aristocracy, or any other despotic or oppressive form so long as there shall remain any virtue in the body of the people.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1939), Vol. XXIX, p. 410. In a letter to Marquis De Lafayette, February 7, 1788.)

U.S. founded as Christian nation

By David L. Shelley, pastor, East Athens Baptist Church
Published November 6, 2003

Sir: There has been no small commotion, in recent years, as to the constitutionality of Christian symbols and citations of Scripture in government owned facilities. Rising from the debate are cries that the U. S. Constitution requires a "separation of church and state" - a Jeffersonian phrase not found in the Declaration of Independence nor the U. S. Constitution.
This separation theme is often interpreted to mean that American government should be devoid of any references to religion. Most recently, there has ensued a judicial battle over such things as the appearance of the Old Testament Decalogue, or the Ten Commandments, in government-owned courthouses and the statement, "One nation under God," as recited in the Pledge of Allegiance. Those who oppose such religious symbolism state that these are inherently "unconstitutional" and should thereby be stricken from the government landscape.
If this reasoning is carried to its logical conclusions, we would eventually remove "In God We Trust" from our nation's currency, cease the more than 200 year tradition of having prayers said in Congress, and ultimately deface the architecture of most federal buildings in Washington, D.C. - for, even the U. S. Supreme Court building contains an artistic rendering of the Ten Commandments.
At the heart of this matter, the question arises, "Was America founded as a Christian nation?" The answer to that question is impeccably clear.
Of the 55 colonial delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, 52 (or 94.5%) were members of Christian churches. Contrary to the widespread misinformation about the prevalence of Deism among the framers, only 3 of the delegates considered themselves to be such (merely 5.5%).
One can ascertain the worldview of the framers of the Constitution by reading their writings. Research in a 1984 article appearing in the American Political Science Review detailed a study of over 17,000 written works by the framers during the era of the late 1700s.
One might conclude that the sources quoted by these writers would indicate the books that they were reading. Did you know that of the quotations from other works that the framers cited in their writings, 34% came from the Bible? The two most often-cited, non-biblical, writers were Baron Charles Montesquieu and Sir William Blackstone: two European legal writers with clearly biblical views of law and government.
If this is not convincing proof that America was founded as a Christian nation, consider the following statements written by the framers themselves:
ï George Washington wrote, "It is impossible rightly to govern the world without God and the Bible."
ï Patrick Henry, who must have known that one day Americans would doubt the Christian foundation of the nation, wrote, "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here."
ï James Madison, who must have known that one day Americans might question the constitutionality of the Ten Commandments in the federal milieu, stated, "We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Let there be no doubt about it; America was founded by Christians and the U. S. Constitution was based upon the eternal laws of God as revealed in the Bible. To think that the Ten Commandments are not historically relevant to the foundations of the American legal system is preposterous.
America may not act like much of a Christian nation today, but it certainly was when our founding documents were written. As our founding father, John Adams, said, "The Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
If Americans remove God from the federal infrastructure, we will only be destroying the very foundation upon which this nation was built.

Religion

"I shall now conclude my discourse by preaching this Savior to all who hear me, and entreating you in the most earnest manner to believe in Jesus Christ, for "there is no salvation in any other". ... If you are not reconciled to God through Jesus Christ, if you are not clothed with the spotless robe of His righteousness, you must forever perish." - United States Founding Father, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Witherspoon, "The Works of John Witherspoon, (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. V, p. 276, 278, "The Absolute Necessity of Salvation Through Christ", January 2, 1758

Government

"To promote true religion is the best and most effectual way of making a virtuous and regular people. Love to God and love to man is the subtance of religion; when these prevail, civil laws will have little to do. ... The magistrate (or ruling part of any society) ought to encourage piety ... [and] make it an object of public esteem. Those who are vested with civil authority ought ... to promote religion and good morals among all their government." - United States Founding Father, Signer of the Declaration of Independence, John Witherspoon, "The Works of John Witherspoon, (Edinburgh: J. Ogle, 1815), Vol. IV, p. 265, "Sermon Delivered at Public Thanksgiving After Peace"

Religious Affiliation of the Signers of the
Declaration of Independence

Religious Affiliation
# of
signers
% of
signers

Episcopalian/Anglican
32
57.1%

Congregationalist
13
23.2%

Presbyterian
12
21.4%

Quaker
2
3.6%

Unitarian or Universalist
2
3.6%

Catholic
1
1.8%

TOTAL
56
100%

Name of Signer
State
Religious Affiliation

Charles Carroll
Maryland
Catholic

Samuel Huntington
Connecticut
Congregationalist

Roger Sherman
Connecticut
Congregationalist

William Williams
Connecticut
Congregationalist

Oliver Wolcott
Connecticut
Congregationalist

Lyman Hall
Georgia
Congregationalist

Samuel Adams
Massachusetts
Congregationalist

John Hancock
Massachusetts
Congregationalist

Josiah Bartlett
New Hampshire
Congregationalist

William Whipple
New Hampshire
Congregationalist

William Ellery
Rhode Island
Congregationalist

John Adams
Massachusetts
Congregationalist; Unitarian

Robert Treat Paine
Massachusetts
Congregationalist; Unitarian

George Walton
Georgia
Episcopalian

John Penn
North Carolina
Episcopalian

George Ross
Pennsylvania
Episcopalian

Thomas Heyward Jr.
South Carolina
Episcopalian

Thomas Lynch Jr.
South Carolina
Episcopalian

Arthur Middleton
South Carolina
Episcopalian

Edward Rutledge
South Carolina
Episcopalian

Francis Lightfoot Lee
Virginia
Episcopalian

Richard Henry Lee
Virginia
Episcopalian

George Read
Delaware
Episcopalian

Caesar Rodney
Delaware
Episcopalian

Samuel Chase
Maryland
Episcopalian

William Paca
Maryland
Episcopalian

Thomas Stone
Maryland
Episcopalian

Elbridge Gerry
Massachusetts
Episcopalian

Francis Hopkinson
New Jersey
Episcopalian

Francis Lewis
New York
Episcopalian

Lewis Morris
New York
Episcopalian

William Hooper
North Carolina
Episcopalian

Robert Morris
Pennsylvania
Episcopalian

John Morton
Pennsylvania
Episcopalian

Stephen Hopkins
Rhode Island
Episcopalian

Carter Braxton
Virginia
Episcopalian

Benjamin Harrison
Virginia
Episcopalian

Thomas Nelson Jr.
Virginia
Episcopalian

George Wythe
Virginia
Episcopalian

Thomas Jefferson
Virginia
Episcopalian (Deist)

Benjamin Franklin
Pennsylvania
Episcopalian (Deist)

Button Gwinnett
Georgia
Episcopalian; Congregationalist

James Wilson
Pennsylvania
Episcopalian; Presbyterian

Joseph Hewes
North Carolina
Quaker, Episcopalian

George Clymer
Pennsylvania
Quaker, Episcopalian

Thomas McKean
Delaware
Presbyterian

Matthew Thornton
New Hampshire
Presbyterian

Abraham Clark
New Jersey
Presbyterian

John Hart
New Jersey
Presbyterian

Richard Stockton
New Jersey
Presbyterian

John Witherspoon
New Jersey
Presbyterian

William Floyd
New York
Presbyterian

Philip Livingston
New York
Presbyterian

James Smith
Pennsylvania
Presbyterian

George Taylor
Pennsylvania
Presbyterian

Benjamin Rush
Pennsylvania
Presbyterian

Mike Diehl,
If you are not anti christian than you obviously think very little of christians in general. You say your sons would be safer almost anywhere else than in a room full of preachers. You say that christians know the ten commandments but do not follow them. You think they are authoritarian wankers. Tell me Mr. Diehl if that is not anti christian I don't know what is. It is at the very least hateful feelings towards christians.

Rabbitpolice- your ability to present evidence to support your opinion is much improved over the last anti-God blog attempt on here. Keep up the good work.

Thank you ranger2,
I just realized you can't reason with people like this, all you can do is present facts.

Chevjames,

I do not know of any company/policy which pays off in the advent of suicide. One must read the fine print and there will be a great deal of it on any policy. While I do not hold with everything the NRA puts forth I do realize they are quite effective and one of the reasons we probably still maintain the rights of gun ownership that remain.

And, like the patriots of old, I am armed and willing to stand in defense of liberty, should the need arise.

You are anti christian, all those hateful comments have condemned you. You said them Mr. Diehl, take responsabiltiy for them and own up. Do not try and squirm out of the trap you lead yourself into. The mere fact that you used the word wanker shows a total lack of character, that word is vile in the extreme.

oh, and that little comment about how the pastor's letter was not a valid argument. Well you sir a predjudiced in the extreme towards preacher in general, so you are blinded by your hatred and not seeing with common sense.

"Facts are facts, if you can't accept them you are small minded. You have no idea what you are talking about."

I see you've conceded that you lost the argument on merit and are now relying primarily on insults. Thanks for playing "Why fundis can't win an argument" with me.

"Pain was a weak minded man"

ROFLMAO!

"I will talk no more"

That is a wise move. You've already done enough damage to your credibility.

"You are anti christian...blahblahblah"

Just running on invective now are you? What happened to your promise to stop talking?

"oh, and that little comment about how the pastor's letter was not a valid argument."

Of course it was. Whenever one looks at a historical claim one has to consider the source. Pastor isn't a primary source. Everything he says is his take (these days the more often used word is "spin" or even, perhaps most appropriate for his "analysis" the phrase "revisionist history.") That a politically agendaed evangelical minister should find in effect that "everyone in the Constitutional Congress was a christian" as one step in trying to claim that the United States was founded as a sectarian nation should surprise NO ONE. He could not have come to any other conclusion.

"Well you sir a predjudiced in the extreme blah blah blah..."

More o' the same baloney I see.

"I hope your last statement was not a covert way of being threatening."

Hell no. If I'd wanted to threaten anyone I'd have done it directly. The statement was an assertion of common philosophy with the patriots that founded the United States as a secular nation in the face of tyranny. The point being that if some cult were to subvert enough of the United States Congress in order to make Koranic doctrine the foundation for US law, or any other sect to accomplish the same, I'm ready to defend against such tyranny.

In my view the best of all worlds allows anyone to practice any faith that they want. Jefferson makes a compelling argument (for me, anyhow) that inserting matters of religious doctrine into the business of governance threatens everyone. So, even though I don't share your evangelical faith, I stand ready to defend your right to practice it *for yourself.* If you tell me we need new policy or new laws and the only justification for them is a reference to some matter of biblical teaching, I have no use for that, any more than laws based on the Koran, the Talmud, the Veddas etc.

You can not defend yourself against your own words of hate and disdain for christians in general. You refuse to accept documented proof that any historian would vouch for in a heart beat. You sir are a small minded man.

"A certain someone is a poor sport at loosing an argument."

Who? You? You lost the argument (then started gettin personal 'cause you couldn't refute the facts I posted).

"You sir have no character, a dirty mouth and the inability to loose graciously."

More of the same baloney from you. Keep talking you're just digging your hole deeper.

"You can not defend yourself against your own words of hate and disdain for christians in general."

You can make up all manner of names to hurl at me. Won't make 'em true, and it still won't do you any good. Anyone can read what I wrote. You're the fellow who seems locked in hate. Look at yourself. Raving out of control with nothing but insults and anger. And here it's six posts after you said you were just gonna be quiet.

Yer like some sort of foul Lovecraftian horror, conjured up from the lore of the old ones by the confused mind of some dark cultist, gibbering madly thru the streets of Dunwich and hoping you can make up something that will stick.

"You refuse to blah blah..."

More of the same, Piled Higher and Deeper. Ho hum ad nauseam.

Get back to me when you got a fact to support your claim and can stop acting the petulant troll.

Your whole argument is based on one man Jefferson. My argument is based one many many different signers and founding fathers.

"So your saying that all those documented facts are false?"

Not at all. Let's review: you claimed that all of the founders were "devout Christians." I demonstrated that your claim is false. Some of them clearly were not. Notwithstanding Adams opinions of Paine's notions of faith, it was skepticism of the institutionalization of religion into governance that carried the day at the Constitutional convention. In evidence of that I note that the word "God" does not appear in the United States Constitution, nor any reference to the Bible, Jesus, Christianity, biblically derived lessons, etc.

If you will read James Madison's notes on the debates you will see that many of the states themselves had similar 'separation of church and state' type clauses on the grounds that most politicians of the day felt that specifically embracing a particular faith would do injury to the practitioners of the other faiths.

And no, my argument does not rest solely on Jefferson's p.o.v. It rests on the notes from the Constitutional Congress, subsequent writings of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Paine, and many others.

In essence your argument reduces to, or seems to, a claim that 'Most of those guys were christians therefore the Constitution is a christian document.' Your claim isn't supported by any direct evidence of christian doctrine in the Constitution, so you must think that these guys simply wore their faith on their sleeves and had religion in mind when they wrote the thing, but were not committed enough to actually WRITE that which they had on their minds. That position makes no sense, unless of course you're trying to insert an ideological bent into the Constitution where none is expressed.

"You tell me my sources are false I just want to hear it from your mouth."

One of them was. Your baptist pastor's claims about the faiths of the constitutional conferees isn't worth much, and his analysis is (1) irrational, and (2) not primary source material. His writings have no more bearing on what the Constitution says (which anyone can read), what the Constitutional conferees believed in re separation of religion and state (which anyone can read), or what the conferees debated (which anyone can read) than the opinion of someone with no knowledge at all of the constitution. Indeed, I stand by the claim that no evangelical minister COULD come to any other conclusion than he did, because evangelism does not even admit of the possibility of falsification.

The evidence is overwhelming that the US Constitution is a secular document, not a Christian one. No amount of trying to channel intentions of the Congressional Conferees is going to get the facts to support your position.

Keep trying though. At least you're backing off of the personal attacks.

"oh, and you did not just " merely note" you called them wankers. What do you have to say to that?"

Read back to what I wrote.

"The part about wankers being attracted to authoritarianism? I stand by it."

I still stand by it. Anyone who claims to know the will of god, claims a privileged and infallible knowledge of that and that all other perceptions of said will, demands obediance to their dicta derived from said privileged pipeline to god, and wants a position of authority in such matters is, in my view, as previously noted a "low life" and a "wanker." Also a tosser, con-artist, charlatan, spindoctor looking to enrich themself, neophyte wannabe totalitarian, etc etc etc.

then by your own mouth you are not a credible sceptic for this argument. Because you came into the argument with a hate filled mind for christians.

I concur with the author in considering the moral precepts of Jesus as more pure, correct, and sublime than those of ancient philosophers.

(Source: Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1904), Vol. X, pp. 376-377. In a letter to Edward Dowse on April 19, 1803.)

Joseph Story

Supreme Court Justice

Indeed, the right of a society or government to [participate] in matters of religion will hardly be contested by any persons who believe that piety, religion, and morality are intimately connected with the well being of the state and indispensable to the administrations of civil justice. The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion—the being, and attributes, and providence of one Almighty God; the responsibility to Him for all our actions, founded upon moral accountability; a future state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, social, and benevolent virtues—these never can be a matter of indifference in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how any civilized society can well exist without them.

(Source: Joseph Story, A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1847), p. 260, §442.)

George Washington

"Father of Our Country"

While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

Benjamin Franklin's letter to Thomas Paine
Benjamin Franklin
Benjamin Franklin (1706-90) was a printer, author, inventor, scientist, philanthropist, statesman, diplomat, and public official. He was the first president of the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery (1774); a member of the Continental Congress (1775-76) where he signed the Declaration of Independence (1776); a negotiator and signer of the final treaty of peace with Great Britain (1783); and a delegate to the Constitutional Convention where he signed the federal Constitution (1787); Franklin was one of only six men who signed both the Declaration and the Constitution. He wrote his own epitaph, which declared: “The body of Benjamin Franklin, printer, like the cover of an old book, its contents torn out, stripped of its lettering, and guilding, lies here, food for worms. But the work shall not be lost; for it will, as he believed, appear once more in a new and more elegant edition, revised and corrected by the Author.”

Benjamin Franklin was frequently consulted by Thomas Paine for advice and suggestions regarding his political writings, and Franklin assisted Paine with some of his famous essays. This letter 1 is Franklin's response to a manuscript Paine sent him that advocated against the concept of a providential God.

TO THOMAS PAINE.
[Date uncertain.]

DEAR SIR,

I have read your manuscript with some attention. By the argument it contains against a particular Providence, though you allow a general Providence, you strike at the foundations of all religion. For without the belief of a Providence, that takes cognizance of, guards, and guides, and may favor particular persons, there is no motive to worship a Deity, to fear his displeasure, or to pray for his protection. I will not enter into any discussion of your principles, though you seem to desire it. At present I shall only give you my opinion, that, though your reasonings are subtile and may prevail with some readers, you will not succeed so as to change the general sentiments of mankind on that subject, and the consequence of printing this piece will be, a great deal of odium drawn upon yourself, mischief to you, and no benefit to others. He that spits against the wind, spits in his own face.
But, were you to succeed, do you imagine any good would be done by it? You yourself may find it easy to live a virtuous life, without the assistance afforded by religion; you having a clear perception of the advantages of virtue, and the disadvantages of vice, and possessing a strength of resolution sufficient to enable you to resist common temptations. But think how great a portion of mankind consists of weak and ignorant men and women, and of inexperienced, inconsiderate youth of both sexes, who have need of the motives of religion to restrain them from vice, to support their virtue, and retain them in the practice of it till it becomes habitual, which is the great point for its security. And perhaps you are indebted to her originally, that is, to your religious education, for the habits of virtue upon which you now justly value yourself. You might easily display your excellent talents of reasoning upon a less hazardous subject, and thereby obtain a rank with our most distinguished authors. For among us it is not necessary, as among the Hottentots, that a youth, to be raised into the company of men, should prove his manhood by beating his mother.

I would advise you, therefore, not to attempt unchaining the tiger, but to burn this piece before it is seen by any other person; whereby you will save yourself a great deal of mortification by the enemies it may raise against you, and perhaps a good deal of regret and repentance. If men are so wicked with religion, what would they be if without it. I intend this letter itself as a proof of my friendship, and therefore add no professions to it; but subscribe simply yours,

B. Franklin
Paine later published his Age of Reason, which infuriated many of the Founding Fathers. John Adams wrote, “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity, let the Blackguard [scoundrel, rogue] Paine say what he will.” 2 Samuel Adams wrote Paine a stiff rebuke, telling him, “[W]hen I heard you had turned your mind to a defence of infidelity, I felt myself much astonished and more grieved that you had attempted a measure so injurious to the feelings and so repugnant to the true interest of so great a part of the citizens of the United States.” 3

Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration, wrote to his friend and signer of the Constitution John Dickinson that Paine's Age of Reason was “absurd and impious”; 4 Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration, described Paine's work as “blasphemous writings against the Christian religion”; 5 John Witherspoon said that Paine was “ignorant of human nature as well as an enemy to the Christian faith”; 6 and Elias Boudinot, President of Congress, even published the Age of Revelation—a full-length rebuttal to Paine's work. 7 Patrick Henry, too, wrote a refutation of Paine's work which he described as “the puny efforts of Paine.” 8

When William Paterson, signer of the Constitution and a Justice on the U. S. Supreme Court, learned that some Americans seemed to agree with Paine's work, he thundered, “Infatuated Americans, why renounce your country, your religion, and your God?” 9 Zephaniah Swift, author of America's first law book, noted, “He has the impudence and effrontery [shameless boldness] to address to the citizens of the United States of America a paltry performance which is intended to shake their faith in the religion of their fathers.” 10 John Jay, an author of the Federalist Papers and the original Chief-Justice of the U. S. Supreme Court, was comforted by the fact that Christianity would prevail despite Paine's attack,“I have long been of the opinion that the evidence of the truth of Christianity requires only to be carefully examined to produce conviction in candid minds.” 11 In fact, Paine's views caused such vehement public opposition that he spent his last years in New York as “an outcast” in “social ostracism” and was buried in a farm field because no American cemetery would accept his remains. 12

Endnotes
1. Jared Sparks, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1840), Vol. X, pp. 281-282. (Return)

2. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Charles Little and James Brown, 1841), Vol. III, p. 421, diary entry for July 26, 1796. (Return)

3. William V. Wells, The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1865), Vol. III, pp. 372-373, to Thomas Paine on November 30, 1802. (Return)

4. Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), Vol. II, p. 770, to John Dickinson on February 16, 1796. (Return)

5. Joseph Gurn, Charles Carroll of Carrollton (New York: P. J. Kennedy & Sons, 1932), p. 203. (Return)

6. John Witherspoon, The Works of the Reverend John Witherspoon (Philadelphia: William W. Woodward, 1802), Vol. III, p. 24, n. 2, from “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men,” delivered at Princeton on May 17, 1776. (Return)

7. Elias Boudinot, The Age of Revelation (Philadelphia: Asbury Dickins, 1801), pp. xii-xiv, from the prefatory remarks to his daughter, Mrs. Susan V. Bradford. (Return)

8. S. G. Arnold, The Life of Patrick Henry of Virginia (Auburn and Buffalo: Miller, Orton and Mulligan, 1854), p. 250, to his daughter Betsy on August 20, 1796; see also, George Morgan, Patrick Henry (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1929), p. 366 n; and Bishop William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers, and Families of Virginia (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1857), Vol. II, p. 12. (Return)

9. John E. O’Conner, William Paterson: Lawyer and Statesman (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1979), p. 244, from a Fourth of July Oration in 1798. (Return)

10. Zephaniah Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (Windham: John Byrne, 1796), Vol. II, pp. 323-324. (Return)

11. William Jay, The Life of John Jay (New York: J. & J. Harper, 1833) Vol. II, p. 266, to the Rev. Uzal Ogden on February 14, 1796. (Return)

12. Dictionary of American Biography, s.v. “Thomas Paine.” (Return)

If this is not enough evidence for you there is nothing else I can do. I can present much more evidence but you have closed your mind. I do apologize for not being quiet before when I said I would, now the subject is ended.

Ignorance is the biggest problem with the "antis"... most of the time, they do not know the full story and just argue on the part that appeals to them.

Bella

Please review your classification of the term "fundamentalist" or Fundies as you call them. The term as defined by Merriam Webster"

1 a : serving as an original or generating source : primary
b : serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : basic
2 a : of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts .
b : adhering to fundamentalism

So what is wrong with adhering to the basic teachings of the Bible which you yourself seemed to agree with in principle? The folks you seem to hate are not really (basic) fundamentalists in the true sense, but rather radicals with their own spin on their religion.

Bella,
Go get help somewhere. You obviously have intellect. If this is your cry for help you need a real live person - not the internet. God Bless.

It is because I have "intellect" that I equate Christian Fundamentalists and Islamic Fundamentalists. As with most politicians, what each creed claims to profess is less important that what each actually does and the desired goals.
When you boil it down there truely is little difference between fundamentalists of any creed. Both fundamentalist christians and muslims persecute homosexuals and seek to restrict the rights of half the population of the planet (women). Both advocate violent conflict to achieve religious goals and claim to have the sole truth from God. Both reject science (except as it serves their goals) and claim all decisions should be reviewed in the light of thousand year old texts. Both Christianity and Islam postulate future eras where each will have eliminated all religious opposition. Both creeds reject scientific warnings regarding planetary crisis and continue to waste time and resources in dogmatic disputes.
Fine somebody might be offended by this analysis, and if they are they should spend some time looking in a mirror.
The Christians and the Muslims have between them been responsible for most of the religious wars and persecutions throughout the past 2,000 years. Something kinda funny, considering both claim to be about peace and love.
There is something about monotheism, that impells it's believers to want to play king o' the mountain or Highlander,(there can be only one!)
Of course any fundies reading this will experience extreme umbrage at being equated with Talibans, after all they have soo much emotionally invested in claiming they are different from the "enemy". Besides the fundie will claim his version is "the one and only truely truely", but the Taliban would say the same exact thing. The differences are dogmatic and cultural, the attitude is exactly the same, the minds are equally closed to reason. Talibans bomb girl's schools, fundies bomb abortion clinics. Both sides target women. From a woman's point of view both are the same differing only in degree. No man has any right to dictate to me my faith or deny me control over my own person, whether he be Christian or Muslim or something else.
Of course fundies will call this attitude "liberal", I call it personal freedom.
One thing I have noticed that Talibans and Christian fundamentalists seem to have in common is this desire to impose things on other disinterested parties by force of law. I have no interest in seeing either batch of dogmatic zealots gain their stated goals. I believe in freedom.

I think all the anti gunners are the me,me drivers that cant look any farther than the car ahead of them. Oh and they'll be driving a Prius. Then when they hit a deer they'll blame that on a hunter somehow. Its no use trying to explain anything to them, we need to educate the youth maybe they'll listen