So Tragic 'america America'

[1Timothy115]

Emily Letts posts video of abortion on youtube (not the link provided here). If you find and watch, pay close attention to all her final remarks (she's not happy with her choice).

 

Satan in Oklahoma. "The Temple is building a mold of the sculpture so they can pop these things out like evil, terribly expensive action figures whenever they need a new one."

 

My son gave the Sunday Morning Memorial Day message at my local church, he couldn't be in uniform; it's like a Christian DADT.

 

"For example, they must avoid the actual or apparent use of their position to promote their personal religious beliefs to their subordinates or to extend preferential treatment for any religion."

 

Just three of the things I've seen recently; We are still not at the following but growing nearer at an ever increasing rate (so it seems): 

 

Luke 17:26 “And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.”

 

Genesis 6:5 “And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.”

 

Not EVERY IMAGINATION yet.

 

We need to find those last remaining folks before Jesus returns and give them the Gospel.

[John81]

Part of this is the result of the way freedom of religion was established in such a way that any religion is considered to be okay and protected. One reading of the OT and the history of Israel should have alerted the Founders to the fact such wasn't a good idea.

 

As in other countries, once Christianity (whether biblical or secular) gains near total dominance Christians eventually become lazy, more secular and too comfortable. Meanwhile, the enemies of Christ see the chinks in the armour and take advantage of it each time a new one appears. Eventually non-Christians gain begin gaining momentum and power, often they are joined by secular Christians and liberalized Christians. At such a point they begin seeking to push biblical Christianity from the dominate position so they can grab for the control.

 

It's a real shame to see satanic statues prepared for public display. How long before Christians either stop putting up Christian themed monuments and other things out of fear the Satanists (and perhaps other false religionists) will then be able to put up what they want? How long before Christians back away and the false religionists begin putting up satanic statues, Islamists put up monuments, along with Mormons, Hindus, Wiccans and others all clamoring to have their stuff on display in public places?

 

Indeed we need to spread the Gospel while we still can. Today is the day of salvation; tomorrow might not be available for them and/or us.

[HappyChristian]

Um, the founders never intended pluralusm. The freedom of religion was understood to be Christianity. Yes, their view of it was broader than ours, but it most certainly was never intended to embrace islam, satanism, etc. One only need to read their writings to know that.

The prOBlem is that Christians have taken a back seat - willingly and piously - to too much and for too long. In every area.

[John81]

Someone posted on here some years ago quotes from some of the Founders speaking to the welcoming of Islam and Jewry.

 

There are also ample writings showing the Founders specifically rejected the idea of having only freedom of religion for Christians only.

 

No doubt many Christians became complacent and decided to coast. While they drifted backwards, the void they left was filled by others promoting liberal Christianity, secular humanism and a host of false religions.

[HappyChristian]

Of course they welcomed Jewry. Christianity was birthed in it, hence Judeo-Christian...

Some of the founders welcomed islam? I don't think so...they were a whole lot more intelligent than most people today and they knew what islam would do. If you can find those quotes, I would appreciate it.

[John81]

If you can get the search feature here to work for you perhaps you can find it. There were direct quotes from some of the Founders someone posted here a few years ago regarding their openness to Islam. I had them saved on my old computer.

 

Jewry is based upon the OT which God did away with and is thus a false religion. Jews (religion followers) and Muslims will be screaming in hell together.

[HappyChristian]

I did search, found nothing. I have to wonder who was quoted and if they were quoted in context...

Yes, I think we are all aware that Judaism was OT and that God replaced it with grace. That doesn't take away from the fact that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. There's gonna be a lot more than Jews and Muslims screaming in Hell. Something we Christians aren't doing enough to stop.

[1Timothy115]

" Founders speaking to the welcoming of Islam and Jewry."

John, you usually present 'proof text' before comment or with it, this isn't like you. I cannot accept a "someone posted" as proof for argument. I've never seen anyone's evidence of such. This nation was founded, aside from the greed for riches; at least on the east coast, by Christians escaping the government's control of worship. 

 

This is the meat of the post:

The point of the post is urgency speaking the Gospel to as many as possible, hoping they will gladly receive it. Time seems to be short and accelerating.

[John81]

Unless you think I'm lying, then the fact my old computer took the saved post with it and the fact I can't ever get the OB search feature to find what I'm looking for, means all I can do is refer to that previous posting. Perhaps one of the older posters here will remember it, or perhaps someone will be able to make the search feature work for them. The only reason I brought it up was because I was posting with long time members, I actually thought LuAnne might remember the quote and even the author of the quote. Had I been posting to newer members who don't know me, I wouldn't have posted what I did.

 

The quote was posted a few years ago and it was a quote I had never heard before. It was verified after using the Founders name and his quote in a search.

 

This is all fact from memory and the fact I can't find the post or remember the Founders name is why I've not carried this any further here. Further, the fact LuAnne doesn't recall the quote means my biggest hope of accessing the actual quote isn't going to happen. Unless I can come up with the quote, or someone else finds it, I won't bring it up again.

 

Beyond that, the fact remains that the Founders specifically chose not to provide freedom of Christianity, but freedom of religion in general. I don't think they did this with any intent of malice or with any idea of what the future would hold due to this, but we are stuck with their decision.

 

Those who first settled in America mostly came here in search of freedom to practice their faith. By the time of the Revolution those men were long gone and already the faith practiced by their progeny had changed. As well, those coming to America in the more recent years prior to the Revolution were not so much seeking freedom to practice their faith, but simply a better life.

 

I agreed with you above that it is indeed time to get the Gospel out while we are yet able. Regardless of past history, contemporary goings on or the perceived future of America, one fact stands clear: without Christ, all are destined for an eternity in hell. Now is the day of salvation. Now is the day to live for Christ and serve the Father faithfully.

[John81]

I've still not found the quote but I did come across this in my searching:

 

Excerpt:

 

In his seminal Letter on Toleration (1689), John Locke insisted that Muslims and all others who believed in God be tolerated in England. Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."

 

In his autOBiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan." George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to "OBtain proper relief" from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome "Mohometans" to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen" (see page 96). Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.

 

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html

[1Timothy115]

I've still not found the quote but I did come across this in my searching:

 

Excerpt:

 

In his seminal Letter on Toleration (1689), John Locke insisted that Muslims and all others who believed in God be tolerated in England. Campaigning for religious freedom in Virginia, Jefferson followed Locke, his idol, in demanding recognition of the religious rights of the "Mahamdan," the Jew and the "pagan." Supporting Jefferson was his old ally, Richard Henry Lee, who had made a motion in Congress on June 7, 1776, that the American colonies declare independence. "True freedom," Lee asserted, "embraces the Mahomitan and the Gentoo (Hindu) as well as the Christian religion."

 

In his autOBiography, Jefferson recounted with satisfaction that in the struggle to pass his landmark Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1786), the Virginia legislature "rejected by a great majority" an effort to limit the bill's scope "in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan." George Washington suggested a way for Muslims to "OBtain proper relief" from a proposed Virginia bill, laying taxes to support Christian worship. On another occasion, the first president declared that he would welcome "Mohometans" to Mount Vernon if they were "good workmen" (see page 96). Officials in Massachusetts were equally insistent that their influential Constitution of 1780 afforded "the most ample liberty of conscience … to Deists, Mahometans, Jews and Christians," a point that Chief Justice Theophilus Parsons resoundingly affirmed in 1810.

 

http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0205/tolerance.html

Now, this is a starting point to look into further. As for the "lying" you mention, don't take the comment beyond what I said. I won't accept hearsay...I will accept this post; there are comments you've provided for me to review and research. Just a brief look at the 'document' referenced allows for the skeptic in me to come out (bolding for emphasis): "Readers may be surprised to learn that there may have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Muslims in the United States in 1776" Until I have an opportunity to research further I will remain skeptical of this recent report in the library of our modern day congress.

[John81]

The reason I only posted the portion with actual things from these particular Founders is because the factual part is all that matters.

 

I agree regarding the writing of the author seems to me to be speculation rather than outright fact.

 

Since the main point was whether or not the Founders had considered other religions, I was only interested in the portion regarding what some of the Founders actually said.

[HappyChristian]

Well, I had to chuckle when I read that you were depending on my memory, John. Thanks for the compliment...but I'm getting old!!     I do wish I remember what you referenced because I would like to go back and read it!!

 

Anyway, I felt the need to address this statement (it's similar to another you made, John, but this one will do)

 

 

Beyond that, the fact remains that the Founders specifically chose not to provide freedom of Christianity, but freedom of religion in general

This statement shows a basic misunderstanding of our founding.  First and foremost is the fact that the founders did not provide any freedoms of any kind.  The founders, rather, provided guiding documents (which would include the Declaration, the Constitution, and all of the letters which have conveniently been put together for us in book form in The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers - excellent books, BTW) to insure our freedoms from an overreaching government.  (you know, kinda like what is happening now, with 41 members of the Senate pushing to remove the first amendment from the constitution...)  The particular amendment to which you refer does not specifically refer to a denomination because the founders knew that would spell trouble. (Many of) Their desire was to promote Christianity, but they knew something so many of us seem to miss: it is not the jOB of government to promote one branch of religion over another.  Including Christianity. That does not mean that Christians are not to be involved in government. It simply means that there was no national religion.

 

The founders did that (and they did so because Baptists pushed them to do it - we owe the Bill of Rights to our Baptist forbears) specifically to avoid what they had just come out from: a church run government and a government run church. It has never worked well in any country, and they knew it would not work here.  And they understood that personal liberty - which they believed came from the Creator (see the Declaration: ".... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness...") would include the choice of one's religious beliefs.  

 

True religious liberty leaves the choice to the individual - even God does not force one in what to believe.  The reason the Baptists wanted that put in the Bill of Rights was not to create a Baptist nation.  They knew that the freedom to spread the gospel without government interference was the right way to go, and they knew that, unless it was specified, there were groups of people (Puritans, or those of their influence, since Puritanism was on the wain...but it's waxing again now with many folk in the Reformed movement) who would shut down the freedom to witness, to attend the church of one's choice, to lead one's family in the way the father believed God was showing him via scripture, etc.

 

It is a truth that true religious liberty does not exclude other religions.  The reason for that is simple: exclude other religions from that liberty, and soon Christianity will cease to exist.  It is not a truth that the reason Christianity is being marginalized and other religions growing is due to that liberty. The reason for it is because Christians have allowed it to happen.  Christians are by and large not witnessing to people (or they witness but don't live the life, so they are laughed at and scorned), they have taken a back seat to anything to do with laws in the land, claiming that Christians have no business being involved in things like that - totally disregarding that God has called us to be stewards of all that He has given us: our families, our monies, our time, our country, and the list could go on.  It's easy to sound virtuous and pious when we say that we are only going to go about the business of soulwinning because that is all God would have us do. PrOBlem is, that isn't true: He wants us to steward what He has set us over, and this country is one of those things - and that would include soulwinning/discipling.

 

Now on to the founders....

I do not for one minute believe that any of the comments the founders made regarding muslims was to promote Islam as a viable religion (although Benjamin Rush did say that it would be better for our youth to have that teaching than no religious teaching - but he was pointing to the character building aspects of it, and the idea of an afterlife with either blessing or judgment. Stupid comment, to be sure.)  Rush was a signer of the Declaration, and a friend of John Adams. Did Adams agree with him?  Here is John Adams on the Quran:

 

 

 

This book is a long conference of God, the angels, and Mahomet, which that false prophet very grossly invented; sometimes he introduceth God, who speaketh to him, and teacheth him his law, then an angel, among the prophets, and frequently maketh God to speak in the plural. … Thou wilt wonder that such absurdities have infected the best part of the world, and wilt avouch, that the knowledge of what is contained in this book, will render that law contemptible 

Hmmm...doesn't sound in favor.

 

What about his son?

 

 

 

n the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE. [emphasis in the original]

Nope, he's even more scathing and he's talking about the religion....

 

John Quincy on the Quran:

 

 

The precept of the koran is, perpetual war against all who deny, that Mahomet is the prophet of God. The vanquished may purchase their lives, by the payment of tribute; the victorious may be appeased by a false and delusive promise of peace; and the faithful follower of the prophet, may submit to the imperious necessities of defeat: but the command to propagate the Moslem creed by the sword is always OBligatory, when it can be made effective. The commands of the prophet may be performed alike, by fraud, or by force.

 

Contrary to what Akbar Ahmed (chair of Islamic studies at American University), who has tried to twist the founders into being pro-muslim, said Franklin called Mohammed a model of compassion, here is what Franklin said in a letter to the editor in 1790:

 

 

 

Nor can the Plundering of Infidels be in that sacred Book [the Quran] forbidden, since it is well known from it, that God has given the World, and all that it contains, to his faithful Mussulmen, who are to enjoy it of Right as fast as they conquer it

Was he favoring it? Nope - he was noting that muslims can plunder infidels (which the Quran spells out is Jews and everyone else not muslim) with impunity because Mohammed says God says so in their book.

 

Jefferson owned a Quran (no biggie - a lot of people do... I would if I could find one, but I'm not going to a mosque in search of one!), but it was translated by Sale (George). And one of Sale's comments in the introduction was:

 

 

 

It is certainly one of the most convincing proofs that Mohammedism was no other than human invention, that it owed its progress and establishment almost entirely to the sword.

 

Thomas Jefferson was claimed to have held the first dinner for Ramadan in the White House.  Not true...he simply, in accommodation  of Tunisian envoy's (BTW - the first muslim envoy...which would not have been had there been thousands of muslims in the country as the author of that article tried to intimate) religious practices simply changed the time of dinner.  It was not an iftaar like Ahmed and even BO claimed.

 

Here is an interesting read of what happened when the envoy came to the US - and please note the curiosity of the American people...a curiosity that would not exist if there were thousands of muslims extant in the US at the time (there were barely thousands of anyone here then!!)     http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/tunisian-envoy

 

In fact, not quite 20 years later (June 26, 1822, in a letter), Jefferson said:  

 

 

Verily I say these are the false shepherds foretold as to enter not by the door into the sheepfold, but to climb up some other way. They are mere usurpers of the Christian name, teaching a counter-religion made up of the deliria of crazy imaginations, as foreign from Christianity as is that of Mahomet.

(note: he was speaking about Calvanism here, but compared it to Islam)

 

 

There has been a concerted effort by revisionists to try and portray the founders as accepting of all religions.  But that is not the case.  Here is what Washington said in 1783 to the Volunteer Association of Ireland:

 

 

 

The bosom of America is open to receive not only the Opulent and respectable Stranger, but the oppressed and persecuted of all Nations and Religions; whom we shall welcome to a participation of all our rights and privileges, if by decency and propriety of conduct they appear to merit the enjoyment. (emphasis mine - his final phrase would indicate, to me, that nonsense like trying to force Sharia law [leaving aside the fact it is anti-Constitutional and would be rejected by the founders on that basis alone] would not be tolerated by the founders...and shouldn't be by us, but it is. It is.

More on liberty from GeoWa:

 

 

The liberty enjoyed by the people of these states of worshiping Almighty God agreeably to their conscience, is not only among the choicest of their blessings, but also of their rights.

The founders of our country knew that, in order to have true liberty, people needed to be free to make up their own minds.  And they are right.  I have no prOBlem with muslims being here in the country. My prOBlem with them is that they are now making inroads into areas which the founders never intended because Christians are sitting back on their laurels saying that the end is coming and God said this would happen so there's nothing we can or ought to do...

 

I think the article you referenced, John, is the result of revisionism - maybe not his own, but the research he's done.  When talking about the muslims along the Barbary Coast, Washington was in favor of crushing them rather than paying tribute. Things there came to a head under Jefferson, who refused to pay tribute and instead, that old isolationist went after 'em (hence Mellimelli's visit to DC).

 

The reason I suspect revisionism is because in looking into this, I found a lot of quotes misapplied, and even misquoted.   Twisted to say things that the founders never said (Ahmed was really good at that!).  They were not in favor of the muslim religion - none of them liked it.  But true liberty had to extend to the few that were here, just as it did to Baptists, Quakers, Jews, etc.  Else it isn't really liberty. That isn't pluralism, because the founders - even the lost, like Franklin and Jefferson - believed Christianity to be superior and that, without the Bible and prayer, true governance cannot be.

 

I could go on with more quotes, but my carpal tunnel is acting up with all of this typing...plus this has gotten WAY too long! 

[Ukulelemike]

To the above, may I also remind the reader, concerning the mention of the Barbary Coast, that the pirates were primarily Muslims. If you should ever watch any of the Pirate of the Caribbean movies, notice carefully and you will see that Johnny Depp's character, Jack Sparrow, wears a small crescent moon symbol in his hair, an homage to the muslim pirates of old. Doubtful that pirates would have been viewed favorably, nor the religion they followed, in early America.