<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Shocker: Mitt Romney Gets It Wrong</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/</link>
	<description>by Hemant Mehta</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 27 May 2012 09:58:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Main Street Plaza &#187; Romney Roundup</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-566454</link>
		<dc:creator>Main Street Plaza &#187; Romney Roundup</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:27:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-566454</guid>
		<description>[...] to say that he does not really oppose it at all.&#8221; These sentiments are echoed by many others: Friendly Atheist, Jewish Atheist, and Unscrewing the [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] to say that he does not really oppose it at all.&#8221; These sentiments are echoed by many others: Friendly Atheist, Jewish Atheist, and Unscrewing the [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-122824</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 08:33:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-122824</guid>
		<description>Hello, I just wanted to mention that without the appeal to a God (an infinite and superior-to us- being in all aspects) that expects us to be like Him, there are no grounds upon which to establish even the most primitive legal system (what do the words &quot;right and &quot;wrong&quot; even mean if we are just &quot;homo sapiens&quot;?) and even less grounds to obey a president and all the officials under him.  I wouldn&#039;t even consider voting for Romney because of his slanted view of God, but I beg you not to associate the two beyond reason.  There are many strange people that give God a bad rap, but let Him speak for himself through beautiful, functional, and even enjoyable nature.  &quot;freedom&quot;, as listed in a comment above, does not come from any religion, I will agree with that, but even religion has a way of tainting the way we percieve God.  I hate being called &quot;religious&quot; because of all the conotations, but I love being called a follower of God the father and His Son Jesus Christ... through whom only true freedom can be found (from our sins... yeah me too, I still screw up all the time), and without can still be seen in the fleshly sense (since we are all made in His image... like him, knowing what is right and wrong).  The source of &quot;freedom&quot; can be heavily debated, but the reason we debate it can&#039;t... it exists.  It&#039;s existence lends support to His existence.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello, I just wanted to mention that without the appeal to a God (an infinite and superior-to us- being in all aspects) that expects us to be like Him, there are no grounds upon which to establish even the most primitive legal system (what do the words &#8220;right and &#8220;wrong&#8221; even mean if we are just &#8220;homo sapiens&#8221;?) and even less grounds to obey a president and all the officials under him.  I wouldn&#8217;t even consider voting for Romney because of his slanted view of God, but I beg you not to associate the two beyond reason.  There are many strange people that give God a bad rap, but let Him speak for himself through beautiful, functional, and even enjoyable nature.  &#8220;freedom&#8221;, as listed in a comment above, does not come from any religion, I will agree with that, but even religion has a way of tainting the way we percieve God.  I hate being called &#8220;religious&#8221; because of all the conotations, but I love being called a follower of God the father and His Son Jesus Christ&#8230; through whom only true freedom can be found (from our sins&#8230; yeah me too, I still screw up all the time), and without can still be seen in the fleshly sense (since we are all made in His image&#8230; like him, knowing what is right and wrong).  The source of &#8220;freedom&#8221; can be heavily debated, but the reason we debate it can&#8217;t&#8230; it exists.  It&#8217;s existence lends support to His existence.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Calvin Moore</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99353</link>
		<dc:creator>Calvin Moore</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2007 04:06:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99353</guid>
		<description>Sarah, 

    I am a Christian first. I am a student of history second. This does not mean that I let my religious beliefs override my view of history. There are many things in American history that have happened contrary to my belief system that I accept as historical fact. As such, I have no agenda in proving how Christian this nation was. If it had been Moslem, I would have pointed to that fact. I was simply trying to show that Mitt Romney&#039;s comments about the founding generation were correct. (When I refer to the founding generation I am not referring only to the big names we are taught in elementary and high school, but the larger contingent of men involved with the DOI, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution.) As such I researched your sources and it seems they have more of an agenda than you believe I have and lack the scholarship expected of historians. Cline, though educated, is not actually a historian so his words do not hold weight. As my Christianity makes me suspect to you, his atheism makes him suspect to everyone. Also, you did not address the actions of the founding generation after the Revolution. The conversion of Congress into church every Sunday. The Presidential proclamations for days of &quot;prayer, thanksgiving, and fasting.&quot; John Jay&#039;s dual role as Chief Justice and president of the American Bible Society. The confession of faith by so many who had a hand in the drafting of the DOI and the Constitution. 

   Jefferson might have had influence, but he was not present through the process. He only became president later by the skin of his teeth in the election of 1800. Ames was indeed a political opponent of Jefferson. So were many others. It&#039;s politics. The fact is, Ames did draft the language of the First Amendment. And he did want Christian scripture as part of the public curriculum. If anyone could interpret the First Amendment, it would be Ames. Yet, he sought for some semblance of a blending of church and state, as did the other founding generation (for the most part). This is also a matter of historical record. The source I cited at the Library of Congress is both scholarly and rife with original documents and secondary opinions you might want to study through. 

     As for Deism, I did not deny people were deists and influenced by deism. I merely pointed to the fact that it was not as widespread or influential in the founding generation as neo-historians would have us believe. Just as you cannot paint our entire generation with broad strokes of postmodernism, you cannot paint that entire generation as deistic in outlook. Jefferson certainly was. Possibly Franklin (though this is hotly debated). Enlightenment thinking had influence, but most of the founding generation still confessed Jesus as a personal savior. Whether that is how we view it today is up for debate, but their confessions are also a matter of historical fact.

    While Americans were not unified on the concept of religion, the majority of the population, whether they attended church or not, considered themselves Christians. This is how the historical record is interpreted by most scholars. There were different sects, to be sure, but most of those sects were sects of Christianity. This is not to say other religions were not present during the time of the American Revolution and the early American republic, but Christianity was and continues to be the dominant religion in this country (though this has, as we both know, waned a great deal).

     I&#039;m not sure exactly what you think here. I&#039;m not one of those guys who &quot;wants a return to America&#039;s Christian heritage.&quot; I&#039;m just looking at the historical record and stating what I see. I suppose it may be a matter of interpretation, but I believe it takes a certain measure of historical calisthenics to make the record say otherwise.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sarah, </p>
<p>    I am a Christian first. I am a student of history second. This does not mean that I let my religious beliefs override my view of history. There are many things in American history that have happened contrary to my belief system that I accept as historical fact. As such, I have no agenda in proving how Christian this nation was. If it had been Moslem, I would have pointed to that fact. I was simply trying to show that Mitt Romney&#8217;s comments about the founding generation were correct. (When I refer to the founding generation I am not referring only to the big names we are taught in elementary and high school, but the larger contingent of men involved with the DOI, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution.) As such I researched your sources and it seems they have more of an agenda than you believe I have and lack the scholarship expected of historians. Cline, though educated, is not actually a historian so his words do not hold weight. As my Christianity makes me suspect to you, his atheism makes him suspect to everyone. Also, you did not address the actions of the founding generation after the Revolution. The conversion of Congress into church every Sunday. The Presidential proclamations for days of &#8220;prayer, thanksgiving, and fasting.&#8221; John Jay&#8217;s dual role as Chief Justice and president of the American Bible Society. The confession of faith by so many who had a hand in the drafting of the DOI and the Constitution. </p>
<p>   Jefferson might have had influence, but he was not present through the process. He only became president later by the skin of his teeth in the election of 1800. Ames was indeed a political opponent of Jefferson. So were many others. It&#8217;s politics. The fact is, Ames did draft the language of the First Amendment. And he did want Christian scripture as part of the public curriculum. If anyone could interpret the First Amendment, it would be Ames. Yet, he sought for some semblance of a blending of church and state, as did the other founding generation (for the most part). This is also a matter of historical record. The source I cited at the Library of Congress is both scholarly and rife with original documents and secondary opinions you might want to study through. </p>
<p>     As for Deism, I did not deny people were deists and influenced by deism. I merely pointed to the fact that it was not as widespread or influential in the founding generation as neo-historians would have us believe. Just as you cannot paint our entire generation with broad strokes of postmodernism, you cannot paint that entire generation as deistic in outlook. Jefferson certainly was. Possibly Franklin (though this is hotly debated). Enlightenment thinking had influence, but most of the founding generation still confessed Jesus as a personal savior. Whether that is how we view it today is up for debate, but their confessions are also a matter of historical fact.</p>
<p>    While Americans were not unified on the concept of religion, the majority of the population, whether they attended church or not, considered themselves Christians. This is how the historical record is interpreted by most scholars. There were different sects, to be sure, but most of those sects were sects of Christianity. This is not to say other religions were not present during the time of the American Revolution and the early American republic, but Christianity was and continues to be the dominant religion in this country (though this has, as we both know, waned a great deal).</p>
<p>     I&#8217;m not sure exactly what you think here. I&#8217;m not one of those guys who &#8220;wants a return to America&#8217;s Christian heritage.&#8221; I&#8217;m just looking at the historical record and stating what I see. I suppose it may be a matter of interpretation, but I believe it takes a certain measure of historical calisthenics to make the record say otherwise.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Friendly Atheist &#187; Responses to Mitt Romney</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99331</link>
		<dc:creator>Friendly Atheist &#187; Responses to Mitt Romney</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:26:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99331</guid>
		<description>[...] Here are excerpts from a variety of sources commenting on Mitt Romney&#8217;s faith speech: [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Here are excerpts from a variety of sources commenting on Mitt Romney&#8217;s faith speech: [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Aj</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99314</link>
		<dc:creator>Aj</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2007 02:24:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99314</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Calvin, are you saying deism was accepted by the populace? Most of our founding fathers were deists- even Thomas Jefferson.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Is that a fact? I&#039;ve read about many of them, and I would have thought the majority were Christian. A lot of the official documents, like the Consistution were largely contributed to by deists. The consensus of Christians and Deists would be Deism, they can all agree that there is a creator. So that might have been your point, that the consensus of the founding fathers was Deism, and that is reflected in their signed documents. Much of the underlying philsophy behind their views was from Deists.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Calvin, are you saying deism was accepted by the populace? Most of our founding fathers were deists- even Thomas Jefferson.</p></blockquote>
<p>Is that a fact? I&#8217;ve read about many of them, and I would have thought the majority were Christian. A lot of the official documents, like the Consistution were largely contributed to by deists. The consensus of Christians and Deists would be Deism, they can all agree that there is a creator. So that might have been your point, that the consensus of the founding fathers was Deism, and that is reflected in their signed documents. Much of the underlying philsophy behind their views was from Deists.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mriana</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99281</link>
		<dc:creator>Mriana</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:43:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99281</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Calvin Moore said,

December 7, 2007 at 1:48 pm 

Actually, Hemant, you are quite wrong on this matter. Historically, the Founders used their position to assert a non-polemical form of Christianity that was generally accepted by the populace.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Calvin, are you saying deism was accepted by the populace?  Most of our founding fathers were deists- even Thomas Jefferson.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Calvin Moore said,</p>
<p>December 7, 2007 at 1:48 pm </p>
<p>Actually, Hemant, you are quite wrong on this matter. Historically, the Founders used their position to assert a non-polemical form of Christianity that was generally accepted by the populace.</p></blockquote>
<p>Calvin, are you saying deism was accepted by the populace?  Most of our founding fathers were deists- even Thomas Jefferson.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Joel Sax</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99272</link>
		<dc:creator>Joel Sax</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 08 Dec 2007 00:03:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99272</guid>
		<description>I love Wendy Kaminer.  When too many atheists/agnostics make asses out of themselves trying to fight religion, she just elegantly states the facts.

&lt;blockquote&gt;a dollar bill is not the public square, and neither is an official pledge of fealty to the nation.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Choice.  Absolutely choice and to the point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love Wendy Kaminer.  When too many atheists/agnostics make asses out of themselves trying to fight religion, she just elegantly states the facts.</p>
<blockquote><p>a dollar bill is not the public square, and neither is an official pledge of fealty to the nation.</p></blockquote>
<p>Choice.  Absolutely choice and to the point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bad</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99263</link>
		<dc:creator>Bad</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:56:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99263</guid>
		<description>They do this simply by shamelessly playing on the ambiguity of the word &quot;public&quot; which can mean two very different things (think public works vs. in public).  Complete BS, of course.  

But hey: don&#039;t forget to &lt;a href=&quot;http://badidea.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/romney-punts-on-religion-also-punts-non-believers/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;open your soul windows everybody&lt;/a&gt;!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>They do this simply by shamelessly playing on the ambiguity of the word &#8220;public&#8221; which can mean two very different things (think public works vs. in public).  Complete BS, of course.  </p>
<p>But hey: don&#8217;t forget to <a href="http://badidea.wordpress.com/2007/12/06/romney-punts-on-religion-also-punts-non-believers/" rel="nofollow">open your soul windows everybody</a>!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Sarah</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99260</link>
		<dc:creator>Sarah</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 23:47:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99260</guid>
		<description>Calvin, there are so many falsehoods in your post, I don&#039;t even have time to go through them all. Judging by your comments on Mormonism and your blog about Christianity, it&#039;s doubtful you look at American history through an objective eye. 

At the time of the &quot;Founders,&quot; only 10% of the population attended church. 

The Revolutionary War pre-dates the drafting of the Constitution. Therefore, citing any religious fervor to support Christianity in government doesn&#039;t work here. 

James Madison - the author of the Constitution - was opposed to funding for chaplains. 

&lt;em&gt;The Constitution of the United states forbid anything like establishment of a NATIONAL religion. The law appointing chaplains establishes a religious worship for the NATIONAL representatives, to be performed by ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the NATIONAL taxes. Does this not involve a principle of a NATIONAL Establishment, a applicable to provision for a religious worship for the constituent as well as the representative body, approved by the majority, and conducted by ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?&lt;/em&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://candst.tripod.com/madnational.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;More on Madison&lt;/a&gt;

You are correct that the phrase &quot;separation of church and state&quot; does not appear in the Constitution. However, the phrase (co-opted by Jefferson and originating with Roger Williams the minister) is used by courts and legislation to define what the First Amendment stands for. 

To claim that Jefferson&#039;s letter to the Danbury Baptist has no influence is extremely ignorant and false. &lt;a href=&quot;http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_sep_danbury.htm&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Austin Cline&lt;/a&gt; says it better than I ever could.

Also, are you NOT aware that Jefferson and Madison were political and personal friends? If you knew anything about Jefferson, you would know that Madison kept a stream of letters going to Jefferson (who was in Paris at the time) concerning the drafting of the Constitution. Madison consider Jefferson a role model and took to MANY of his ideas concerning government. 

It also should be noted that Fisher Ames was extremely critical of Jefferson&#039;s ideas too. Once again, you are also false about Ames &quot;drafting&quot; the First Amendment. Please refer to &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag1_user.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;footnote 2&lt;/a&gt;.

By the way, professing Jesus as your savior has NOTHING to do with if you agree that church and state should be separate. Neither does your religious beliefs. The Founders were a good example of this principle. They had varying religious views, but still agreed that separating those views from government was a GOOD idea. Not only that, many of the Founders were students of the classics. It&#039;s no surprise that the concept of democracy comes from ancient Greece. 

And yes, the great deal of IMPORTANT Founders (Jefferson, Madison) were religious freethinkers who freely criticized Christianity and its followers, not to mention defend religious freedom at every possible moment:

&lt;em&gt;...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are estined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.&lt;/em&gt; John Adams

&lt;em&gt;And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion &amp; Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.&lt;/em&gt; James Madison

&lt;em&gt;Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government. &lt;/em&gt;James Madison

&lt;em&gt;Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.&lt;/em&gt; James Madison, again!

&lt;em&gt;Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.&lt;/em&gt; Thomas Jefferson

&lt;em&gt;I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them. &lt;/em&gt;Thomas Jefferson

But most importantly, that letter to the Danbury Baptists again:

&lt;em&gt;Because religious belief, &lt;strong&gt;or non-belief&lt;/strong&gt;, is such an important part of every person&#039;s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the &quot;wall of separation between church and state,&quot; therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.&lt;/em&gt;

&lt;em&gt;We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.&lt;/em&gt;

And - as a personal side note - both Jefferson and Adams cheered in private letters when England finally decided to overturn a law which required all citizens to proclaim the divinity of Jesus Christ. 

To say that deism wasn&#039;t influential is also false. Ever heard of the &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;Age of Enlightenment&lt;/a&gt;?&quot; The major players in the shaping of America were followers. 

Well, I could probably spend half a day on this, but I&#039;ve run out of time. Luckily, the serious student of American history will regard your post with little to no relevance here. Plus, I hope you can work our your biases against religions you don&#039;t agree with too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Calvin, there are so many falsehoods in your post, I don&#8217;t even have time to go through them all. Judging by your comments on Mormonism and your blog about Christianity, it&#8217;s doubtful you look at American history through an objective eye. </p>
<p>At the time of the &#8220;Founders,&#8221; only 10% of the population attended church. </p>
<p>The Revolutionary War pre-dates the drafting of the Constitution. Therefore, citing any religious fervor to support Christianity in government doesn&#8217;t work here. </p>
<p>James Madison &#8211; the author of the Constitution &#8211; was opposed to funding for chaplains. </p>
<p><em>The Constitution of the United states forbid anything like establishment of a NATIONAL religion. The law appointing chaplains establishes a religious worship for the NATIONAL representatives, to be performed by ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of the NATIONAL taxes. Does this not involve a principle of a NATIONAL Establishment, a applicable to provision for a religious worship for the constituent as well as the representative body, approved by the majority, and conducted by ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?</em></p>
<p><a href="http://candst.tripod.com/madnational.htm" rel="nofollow">More on Madison</a></p>
<p>You are correct that the phrase &#8220;separation of church and state&#8221; does not appear in the Constitution. However, the phrase (co-opted by Jefferson and originating with Roger Williams the minister) is used by courts and legislation to define what the First Amendment stands for. </p>
<p>To claim that Jefferson&#8217;s letter to the Danbury Baptist has no influence is extremely ignorant and false. <a href="http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/cs/blcsm_sep_danbury.htm" rel="nofollow">Austin Cline</a> says it better than I ever could.</p>
<p>Also, are you NOT aware that Jefferson and Madison were political and personal friends? If you knew anything about Jefferson, you would know that Madison kept a stream of letters going to Jefferson (who was in Paris at the time) concerning the drafting of the Constitution. Madison consider Jefferson a role model and took to MANY of his ideas concerning government. </p>
<p>It also should be noted that Fisher Ames was extremely critical of Jefferson&#8217;s ideas too. Once again, you are also false about Ames &#8220;drafting&#8221; the First Amendment. Please refer to <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1afrag1_user.html" rel="nofollow">footnote 2</a>.</p>
<p>By the way, professing Jesus as your savior has NOTHING to do with if you agree that church and state should be separate. Neither does your religious beliefs. The Founders were a good example of this principle. They had varying religious views, but still agreed that separating those views from government was a GOOD idea. Not only that, many of the Founders were students of the classics. It&#8217;s no surprise that the concept of democracy comes from ancient Greece. </p>
<p>And yes, the great deal of IMPORTANT Founders (Jefferson, Madison) were religious freethinkers who freely criticized Christianity and its followers, not to mention defend religious freedom at every possible moment:</p>
<p><em>&#8230;Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are estined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.</em> John Adams</p>
<p><em>And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion &amp; Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.</em> James Madison</p>
<p><em>Religion flourishes in greater purity without than with the aid of government. </em>James Madison</p>
<p><em>Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any Manner contrary to their conscience.</em> James Madison, again!</p>
<p><em>Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch toward uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one-half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth.</em> Thomas Jefferson</p>
<p><em>I know it will give great offense to the clergy, but the advocate of religious freedom is to expect neither peace nor forgiveness from them. </em>Thomas Jefferson</p>
<p>But most importantly, that letter to the Danbury Baptists again:</p>
<p><em>Because religious belief, <strong>or non-belief</strong>, is such an important part of every person&#8217;s life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the &#8220;wall of separation between church and state,&#8221; therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.</em></p>
<p><em>We have solved &#8230; the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.</em></p>
<p>And &#8211; as a personal side note &#8211; both Jefferson and Adams cheered in private letters when England finally decided to overturn a law which required all citizens to proclaim the divinity of Jesus Christ. </p>
<p>To say that deism wasn&#8217;t influential is also false. Ever heard of the &#8220;<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment" rel="nofollow">Age of Enlightenment</a>?&#8221; The major players in the shaping of America were followers. </p>
<p>Well, I could probably spend half a day on this, but I&#8217;ve run out of time. Luckily, the serious student of American history will regard your post with little to no relevance here. Plus, I hope you can work our your biases against religions you don&#8217;t agree with too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Old Beezle</title>
		<link>http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99208</link>
		<dc:creator>Old Beezle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Dec 2007 21:03:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://friendlyatheist.com/2007/12/06/shocker-mitt-romney-gets-it-wrong/#comment-99208</guid>
		<description>Mormon doctrine advocates theocratic rule.  The precedent began with Joseph Smith and his bid for presidency back in the day along with his positions as Mayor of Nauvoo Illinois and Commander of the Nauvoo Legion (Mormon Militia).  Brigham Young continued it as Governor of the Utah Territory.  These political positions were concurrent with these men leading the Mormon church (zero separation of church and state).  Oh, and who can forget that Mormons also believe Jesus himself will rule the world in a perfect theocracy during the thousand years of the Millenium (the period that comes after Armageddon but prior to Judgment).

One can only hope that Romney is a better politician/businessman than he is a Mormon.  It appears that he&#039;s only in it for the money &amp; the power and the power &amp; the money so I think we&#039;re safe...sort-of...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Mormon doctrine advocates theocratic rule.  The precedent began with Joseph Smith and his bid for presidency back in the day along with his positions as Mayor of Nauvoo Illinois and Commander of the Nauvoo Legion (Mormon Militia).  Brigham Young continued it as Governor of the Utah Territory.  These political positions were concurrent with these men leading the Mormon church (zero separation of church and state).  Oh, and who can forget that Mormons also believe Jesus himself will rule the world in a perfect theocracy during the thousand years of the Millenium (the period that comes after Armageddon but prior to Judgment).</p>
<p>One can only hope that Romney is a better politician/businessman than he is a Mormon.  It appears that he&#8217;s only in it for the money &amp; the power and the power &amp; the money so I think we&#8217;re safe&#8230;sort-of&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic (User agent is rejected)
Page Caching using disk: enhanced (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 1/9 queries in 0.021 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 381/394 objects using disk: basic
Content Delivery Network via Amazon Web Services: S3: wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com (user agent is rejected)

Served from: www.patheos.com @ 2012-05-27 05:09:20 -->
