David Barton's lie that Benjamin Franklin chose to begin a treaty in the name of the trinity

[luisdez81]

This is ridiculous. The founding fathers were a pretty practical bunch. If they were alive today they would most likely be atheists due to the advancement of science. Things like evolution and modern cosmology hadn't existed. What's your excuse Barton. Prove your god exists first, then you may continue to speak. If you can't STFU and GTFO.

[WayMoreGuitar]

Sure, she uses facts, but to claim that something TRUE is a LIE. I understand that it bothers some people that our founding history is soaked in religeous influence and inclusion, but talking it down does not change it. The dedication to denying what was and what was/IS intended is incredible. Do not take my word for it or debate me. Read the founders words & learn how they led by example. See that Barton's case is correct and while Rodda has facts, they do not disprove our religeous heritage.

[jfsfrnd]

Barton is misinterpreting the term 'Secular'. 

[jfsfrnd]

2-The secular concerns of life respect making making provision for the support of life, the preservation of health, the temporal prosperity of men, of states, &c. Secular power is that which superintends and governs the temporal affairs of men, the civil or political power; and is contradistinguished from spiritual or ecclsiastical power.

[jfsfrnd]

1-1828 Websters Dictionary -

SEC'ULAR, a. [L. secularis, from seculum, the world or an age.]

1. Pertaining to the present world, or to things not spiritual or holy; relating to things not immediately or primarily respecting the soul, but the body; worldly.

[jfsfrnd]

Chris Rodda you should be teaching in College.

[jfsfrnd]

Look up Seven Mountain Strategy. David Barton stated this on a recent radio show. They want to take over seven main parts of society. Dominionism.

[Chuichupachichi]

Oh wow, so now Britain & the other nations were the Christian nations & the early US was the secular nation?

Lady, lay off the meds already, they're yet another deception from the same evil rulers of today that deceive also about yesterday

I guess the Colonists forgot their role as the secularists during the War of Independence when they used a banner depicting the "Hand of Providence" & their battle cry was; "rebellion to tyrants, is obedience to God"

[Chuichupachichi]

Britain forgot theirs also, considering the fact that whenever they captured colonist clergymen, they dealt with them in precisely the same manner in which they dealt with military officers. This was because the British knew that the fervently Christian colonists were actually lead by clergymen in the same manner as by military officers

[BarthBunzel]

Wow, so they threw some religious reference in a treaty for mainly diplomatic purposes so that means we are a Christian nation and must bow down before Jesus or else?

[timeless9you]

I found Alice Baldwin's thesis posted here so you can start reading it now. Google Alice Baldwin alexanderhamiltoninstitute.

I am about a quarter though it and think she succeeds in giving an accurate view of an era whereby nearly everyone knew scripture of which its rejection in the public square today renders our culture blind to what transpired at the founding.

[tsrox20]

Dave only hopes that people are going to take his word for it and not delve into it. We must try to keep christian evangelism not only out of our science classes, but also our history classes. Keep up the good work Chris!

[WayMoreGuitar]

@tsrox20 People SHOULD DELVE. The founders knew & stated that religeous inclusion in government, culture & society are CRUCIAL to preservation of our government, rights & Liberty. Washington's farewell address is a prime example of it. Without those principles, we get marxists, socialists, communists& crooks. Our national seal (on your money!) contains the words "Annuit Coeptus". It translates to "He has smiled on our undertakings". They wrote and showed us what they meant. They left the path.

[tsrox20]

@WayMoreGuitar Incorrect. The establishment clause itself states that government should not endorse a national religion and, in turn, must remain objective on matters of religious origin. Furthermore, where are you getting these facts and figures? Socialist countries, on the whole, have factors less of crime and violence when compared to the United States.

[tsrox20]

Were the vast majority of the founding father's religious? Yes they were, but if you read Thomas Jefferson's writings, he constantly argues that religion and government should never intermingle.

[WayMoreGuitar]

@tsrox20 I have read the founders words, studied their actions, taken a Constitution course & studied it on my own. I don't advocate a national religeon & neither did the founders, but they did & I call for religeous inclusion. Every time I hear "Separation of Church & State lawsuit" it makes me realize how uninformed the population is to accept the premise being put forth. Gov't gets shut out out of religeon & not the other way around. Anyone endorsing socialism should be embarrased.

[WayMoreGuitar]

@tsrox20 When Stalin isolated& starved the Ukrainian people for prefering their rights over oppressive socialism was it not a crime? When Hitler (National Socialist Party) oppressed the rights of people, turned children against parent, arrested parents who opposed him, was that not crime? Need I go to Castro Che' and Mao? When a government takes, wastes & redistributes earned income is that not crime? Thou shall not steal, covet thy neighbor's goods or kill. The founders knew principles matter.

[tsrox20]

@WayMoreGuitar I am not denouncing their crimes, but they were totalitarian governments where power was held by either one person (dictator) or a very small group of people (oligarchy). They were not true communists by any stretch of the word since communism, according to Marx, is a governmentless state where the people are self reliant yet work as a conglomerate. Hitler was not a socialist, he was a fascist dictator. These were crimes commited by individuals, not governments.

[tsrox20]

Furthermore, you are citing a whopping three of the ten commandments which basically are predated by law codes (like Hammurabi's) by a thousand years. What about the sabbath day and keeping it holy? Should people that work on Sundays be killed since they are not honoring the sabbath? There are laws in place to keep society in order, I agree, but they are based off of a common philosophical principle, "treat others as you wish to be treated". This "golden" rule is just common sense honestly.

[WayMoreGuitar]

@tsrox20 WOW! You repeat that hippie college professor speech verbatim! Everyone with that position uses the exact same words to make the initial case. Those "individuals" followed MARX. Marx wrote the COMMUNIST Manefesto! Marx wrote about eliminating 20% of the population (strongest opponents) . Hitler (& his National SOCIALIST party)did. Mao did. Stalin did. ALL were fascist & socialist. Hitler thought "National". Stalin planned much bigger dominance. Corrupt individuals. Corrupt governments.

[tsrox20]

@WayMoreGuitar They were not following Marx by any stretch. Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Union, actually created his own form of communism (which came to be known as Leninism) where the state was dominated by a single individual and would not be phased out, like communism originally intends. The objective of communism was originally giving all the power and resources to the people (think of it as extreme democracy). That was Marx's theory.

[tsrox20]

Hitler was not a socialist. He did not follow socialist principles. He was a fascist dictator who sought to control the world and eliminate all undersirables and pave the way for his concept of the Aryan race. Furthermore, Hitler was a devout catholic. Just read mein kampf and you can easily see how religious Hitler really was.

[WayMoreGuitar]

@tsrox20 Self reliant people? That is what the US Constitution was written to protect, yet we still have politicians, lobbyists, the UN, reporters & political organizations trying to destroy it. We DO only need minimal government, but under the chains of the constitution, we STILL have userpers, corruptors & deceivers dividing us to mangle our form of government & replace it. Anyone advocating socialism & communism knows it very well because they are part of it.

[tsrox20]

@WayMoreGuitar Are you telling me that if your libertarian view took hold, people would all just behave and work together as a unified nation? All that would happen is a return to medieval Europe with aristocracys popping up across the nation because the people that have money come to control those who don't. Furthermore, with no federal system of government, laws would essentially become pointless as long as the law breaker was powerful enough to weasel out of whatever they did.

[tsrox20]

This is supposed to be the land of equal opportunity. If there is no government, then that equal opportunity will go right out of the window. The rich will grow richer, and the poor will grow poorer. Crime, poverty, famine, etc.would destroy this nation. And what will happen when the military is privatised since the government would no longer be in control of it? Another bloody civil war and probably the establishment of a dictator. To the victor go the spoils.

[WayMoreGuitar]

@tsrox20 Who's calling for no government? No government = anarchy. No government means you can't go to work & also protect your property. Our society & culture is not taught our self responsibility founding principles. It is more entitlement inclined as the years go by. That means more taking from citizens & more giving it to other citizens. EQUAL rights? No. And Hitler not a socialist? Why was his government named the National Socialist Party? He also clearly didn't FOLLOW Catholic teachings.

[WayMoreGuitar]

@tsrox20 We NEED government, but ONLY to protect our rights, not to provide priviledges.We NEED laws to protect property rights & police to enforce them. As James Madison; "We have a right to our property and a property in our rights". THAT's government's job; to protect our rights equally, not to support some with income of others. "Provide for the general welfare" isn't income redistribution. It keeps the free market free & opportunity equal. It's NOT Over regulation on Gibson guitar wood!

[tsrox20]

@WayMoreGuitar I am not arguing that the government's job is not to protect our rights. Without statutes of limitations, the free market system would eventually become one sided (i.e. the producers would grow more powerful than the consumers). Just look at the robber barons of the late 19th century and early 20th. That is what a laissez faire economy does; the rich eliminate competition and hence get richer. What about the rights of the layman shop owner? Does he not have the right to compete?

[tsrox20]

We do not operate in a truly free market economy. The US economy is more of monopolistic competition that free competition. The government intervenes to an extent to provide opportunity for all to succeed, not just a select few who can afford to put others out of business. Furthermore, the public welfare system helps support those that are down on their luck . . . it is not meant to be a crutch. Do some people abuse the system? Yes, but there are many who actually need the aid.

[tsrox20]

My mother is the perfect example. She had a stroke in 1998, but because of a lot of circumstances earlier in her life, she does not qualify for disability. She has just recently been approved for SSDI after a long, drawn out battle with the courts. Yet there are people who can suffer from things like depression and get disability. That is the down side of a public good. You get free riders. But just because there are a few free riders does not mean the whole thing should be scrapped.

[WayMoreGuitar]

@tsrox20 There is regulation as intended by our constitution and there is over-regulation that has put steel, oil, energy and other jobs in a box where they cannot compete and they become weaker or fail completely. Those jobs go to other countries. See the current story w/ Feds raiding the Gibson guitar company in 2009 & again last month with the Lacey act being used as a political tool & Gibson being told by the feds that they would have no problem if Madagascar employees did the the wood work.