Metaphysical folks like us are often interested in religion, though we are not always pious accepters of whatever the current fad is among dogmatists. It would pay us well to understand the enormous gap between truth and current dogma about the religious right’s views on the Founding Fathers.

We are assured from pulpit and podium in voices strident, condescending and unctuous, that the Founding Fathers were all Christians of the same type as the current crop of blowhards, and really wanted this country to be a Christian country.

Not all that long ago I remember a storm in a teacup here about the ‘Pledge of Allegiance.’ Oceans of ink and thousands of cubic feet of hot air were generated protesting the ruling that the Pledge as it stands is unconstitutional.

Most of the letters to the editor, some, astonishingly enough elegantly literate, were from evangelicals absolutely certain that the Founding Fathers would be in favor of the Pledge, and were Bible believing Christians. They are wrong factually on both counts, if an alien may interpolate a bit of history before the next election fever, if there is another election, which is problematical, since every requirement of martial law is already in place.

Most of the Founding Fathers were not Bible believing Christians. Yes they had the word God in their vocabulary, but it wasn’t the God of the current fundamentalists and Christian right, who are making all the fuss.They called themselves Deists, and were called Deists as a term of contempt by the Bible believing Christians of the time.

Deism was a widely held philosophical belief of the better-educated classes at the time of the American Revolution. It held that human reason was a reliable means of solving social and political problems. The Deist God was a supreme deity who created the universe to operate solely by natural laws. This God then removed himself entirely from the universe after creating it, according to the Deists.

Having left the universe alone he had nothing to do with controlling any part of it. He left that to the natural laws. He interfered not at all in human affairs, in particular he gave no supernatural revelation to any human being.

This is hardly the God of the fundamentalists who claim the support of the Founding Fathers because they used the word God. Their unexamined assumption is that the God of the Founding Fathers is that of the Bible believers. It isn’t. Deists did not believe in the virgin birth, the divinity of Jesus or his resurrection, the efficacy of prayer, the miracles of the Bible, or even the divine inspiration of the Bible. Hardly the sort of people that the right wing Christians would welcome now as congregants.

The Father of the American Revolution was considered by many to be Thomas Paine who wrote Age of Reason, among other things. This book outraged his Christian contemporaries. He vigorously defended the Deist viewpoint, and was called an atheist for his pains. To add to the list I would mention that some of the others who were Deists included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, James Madison, and James Monroe.

These are the very people that the Christian right is trying to fit into their fundamentalist pigeon hole, and claim as fellow believers. They weren’t, and they are either lying about it, if they know the facts, or are parroting lies if they don’t.

Thomas Jefferson, in fact, was fiercely anti-cleric. In a letter to Horatio Spafford in 1814, Jefferson said,

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer for their purposes"

This man knew his history, and didn’t mince words, though his elegant phrases and clarity of utterance are certainly beyond the powers of the current incumbent of the office that we are told was held by a Bible believer. Jefferson didn’t believe that the Bible is "the inspired word of God." The Jefferson New Testament that he compiled from the King James Version eliminated all miracles attributed to Jesus and ended with his burial. There was no mention of the resurrection. This take on the life of Jesus was considered scandalous by Christians, but was perfectly in line with Jefferson's Deism. In a letter to John Adams, he wrote,

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter" (April 11, 1823).”

It is clear by now I hope that this Founding Father was not a devout Christian who believed in the Bible. In case any doubt is left, this is what he said about Christianity. In Notes on the State of Virginia,

"There is not one redeeming feature in our superstition of Christianity. It has made one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites" (quoted by newspaper columnist William Edelen, "Politics and Religious Illiteracy," Truth Seeker, Vol. 121, No. 3, p. 33).

Anyone who made such a statement in today’s climate would be branded as an infidel by the same fundamentalists who are trying to say that Jefferson and the others were Bible believing Christians. They must do this because Jefferson was just too important in the formation of this nation to leave him out if the fundamentalists hope to sell their nonsensical and untrue "Christian-nation" claim to the public.

So,like other branches of their religion in the past they rewrite history to make it appear that men like Thomas Jefferson had intended to build our nation on "biblical principles."

The historical irony of this situation is that the Christian leaders of Jefferson's time knew exactly where he stood on "biblical principles," and they fought desperately, but unsuccessfully, to prevent his election to the presidency. The Christian congregations were threatened with dire consequences if they voted for the infidel Jefferson in the 1800 election.

William Linn, a Dutch Reformed minister in New York City, made perhaps the most violent of all attacks on Jefferson's character, all of it based on religious matters. In a pamphlet entitled Serious Considerations on the Election of a President, Linn accused Jefferson of the heinous crimes of not believing in divine revelation and of a design to destroy religion and `introduce immorality. Even then the Christians claimed a monopoly on morality. He referred to Jefferson as a "true infidel" and insisted that "(a)n infidel like Jefferson could not, should not, be elected"

Why would contemporary clergymen have so vigorously opposed Jefferson's election if he were as devoutly Christian as modern preachers claim? The answer is that Jefferson was not a Christian, and the preachers of his day knew that he wasn't. During the campaign Jefferson wrote a letter to Benjamin Rush in which he angrily commented on the clerical efforts to assassinate his personal character. In this letter is the famous line inscribed on his monument in Washington.

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

This strong sentence is often quoted out of context by the usual suspects. Note well therefore that Jefferson was not referring to the King of England, but to the Christians and their religious tyranny. The God he mentioned was not their God either. Their tyranny we still experience today on the issues of abortion and gay marriage, about which I must add, Jesus said absolutely nothing, unless "Love your neighbour." is relevant.

After Jefferson became president he refused to issue Thanksgiving proclamations, a fact that Justice Souter referred to in his concurring opinion with the majority in Lee vs. Weisman, the recent supreme-court decision that ruled prayers at graduation ceremonies unconstitutional.

In his first presidential term, Jefferson declared his firm belief in the separation of church and state in a letter to the Danbury (Connecticut) Baptists

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should `make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and state."

When confronted with evidence like this, some fundamentalists will admit that maybe Thomas Jefferson was not a Bible-believer but will then insist, relying on the ignorance of their listener, that most of the other "Founding Fathers"--men like Washington, Madison, and Franklin--were Christians whose intention during the formative years of our country was to establish a "Christian nation."

Again, it is wishful thinking, or lying on their part, depending on whether they know better or not, and lying is not out of the question simply because they call themselves Christians. Not everyone who says 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of heaven, we are told.

James Madison, was a close friend and political ally of Jefferson and stood where he did with regard to religious intrusions into civil affairs. In 1785, when the Commonwealth of Virginia was considering passage of a bill "establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," Madison wrote his famous "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" in which he presented fifteen reasons why government should not be involved in the support of any religion.

This paper, was also cited in the majority opinion in Lee vs. Weisman. The views of Madison and Jefferson prevailed in the Virginia Assembly, and in 1786, the Assembly adopted the statute of religious freedom of which Jefferson and Madison were the principal architects. The preamble to this bill said that "to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."
Here is the statute, which was much more specific than the clause of the Constitution

"Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise [sic] diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities".

Realizing however, that whatever legislation an elected assembly passed can be later repealed, Jefferson ended the statute with a statement of contempt for any legislative body that would be so presumptuous. It applies today to those claiming his support...

"And though we well know this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding assemblies, constituted with the powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable, would be of no effect in law, yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right" (emphasis added by me).

Just a couple more points of history rather than wishful thinking of a concept that would give power to the power hungry, Let’s look for a moment at Washington, another person the Christian right has tried to claim as one of their own.

On August 13, 1835, a Colonel Mercer, involved in the continuing effort by the Christians to claim Washington as one of them, wrote to Bishop William White, who had been one of the rectors at the church Washington had attended. He asked if "Washington was a communicant of the Protestant Episcopal church. On August 15, 1835, White sent Mercer this reply:

“In regard to the subject of your inquiry, truth requires me to say that Gen. Washington never received the communion in the churches of which I am the parochial minister. Mrs. Washington was an habitual communicant.... I have been written to by many on that point, and have been obliged to answer them as I now do you.” (Remsberg, p. 104).

Would preachers today consider someone a devout Christian if he just attended services with his wife but never took the communion?

As for Washington's membership in the vestry, that Christians also quote… for several years he did actively serve as one of the twelve vestrymen of Truro parish, Virginia, as had his father. This, however, cannot be construed as evidence that he was a Christian. The vestry at that time was also the county court, so in order to have certain political powers, it was necessary for one to be a vestryman. Even avowed unbelievers like Jefferson were vestrymen because they needed to be so politically. There was no religious connotation.

In February 1800, after Washington's death, Thomas Jefferson wrote this statement in his personal journal

“Dr. Rush told me (he had it from Asa Green) that when the clergy addressed General Washington, on his departure from the government, it was observed in their consultation that he had never, on any occasion, said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion, and they thought they should so pen their address as to force him at length to disclose publicly whether he was a Christian or not. However, he observed, the old fox was too cunning for them. He answered every article of their address particularly, except that, which he passed over without notice....”

The absence of Christian references in Washington's personal papers and conversation was noted by historian Clinton Rossiter:

“The last and least skeptical of these rationalists [Washington] loaded his First Inaugural Address with appeals to the "Great Author," "Almighty Being," "invisible hand," and "benign parent of the human race," but apparently could not bring himself to speak the word "God" ("The United States in 1787," 1787 The Grand Convention, New York W, W, Norton & Co., 1987, p. 36).

These terms by which Washington referred to "God" in his inaugural address are dead giveaways that he was Deistic in his views. The uninformed see the expression "nature's God" in documents like the Declaration of Independence and wrongly interpret it in their letters to the editor as evidence of Christian belief in those who wrote and signed it, but in reality it is a sure indication that the document was Deistic in origin.

Deists preferred not to use the unqualified term "God" in their conversation and writings precisely because of its Christian connotations. So, they substituted expressions like those that Washington used in his inaugural address or they referred to the creator as "nature's God," the deity who had created the world and then left it to operate by natural law.

The letters to the editors that I have read nearly always quote from the Declaration of Independence. This document has absolutely zero legal status. The law of the land is, or rather, was, based on English Common Law and on the Constitution.

In the document of the Constitutional Convention religion was mentioned only once, and that was in Article VI, Section 3, which stated that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Common sense, which is not common in these matters, is enough to convince any reasonable person that if the intention of these men had really been the formation of a "Christian nation," the constitution they wrote would have made several references to God, the Bible, Jesus, and other themes of the Christian religion, and rather than expressly forbidding ANY religious test as a condition for holding public office in the new nation, it would have stipulated that allegiance to Christianity was a requirement for public office.

As for the Common Law argument that I have heard, British Common Law was of Saxon origin, and that was in place three hundred years before the Christians got to the island. Common Law wasn’t based on Christian beliefs either. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

And lastly, because this could go on for many dozens of pages, anyone who would still insist that the intention of the Founding Fathers was to establish a Christian nation should review a document written during the administration of George Washington. Article 11 of the Treaty with Tripoli declared in part that "the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion..." (Treaties and Other International Acts of the United States, ed. Hunter Miller, Vol. 2, U. S. Government Printing Office, 1931, p. 365).

This treaty was negotiated by the American diplomat Joel Barlow during the administration of George Washington. Washington read it and approved it, although it was not ratified by the Senate until John Adams had become president. When Adams signed it, he added this statement to his signature,

"Now, be it known, that I, John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said treaty, do, by and within the consent of the Senate, accept, ratify and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof."

This document and the approval that it received from our nation's first and second presidents and the U.S. Senate as constituted in 1797 do nothing to support the propaganda that the Founding Fathers established this country as a "Christian nation."

In New England, where the quest for religious freedom had indeed been a strong motive for leaving the Old World, the colonists quickly established governments that were just as intolerant, if not more so, of religious dissent than what they had fled from in Europe. Quakers were exiled and then executed if they returned, and "witches," condemned on flimsy spectral evidence, were hanged. This is not part of our past that modern fundamentalists can point to as a model to be emulated, although the strident and arrogant tones they use makes it pretty clear that they would be content if that were the situation today. It was this intolerance that the Founding Fathers were fighting. And we can see the same disease flourishing today.

And as a line about the mythology that colonial America was stuffed with people who came here because they wanted religious freedom, here is a quote from Lynn R. Buzzard, executive director of the Christian Legal Society (a national organization of Christian lawyers). He admits that there is little proof to support the claim that the colonial population was overwhelmingly Christian.

"Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian," Buzzard wrote, "but the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776" (Schools They Haven't Got a Prayer, Elgin, Illinois David C. Cook Publishing, 1982, p. 81).

Get that number from a Christian historian...five percent, not ninety five percent.

I don’t usually stuff a post with references, Google is available to all, but in this case I think it necessary because of the unethical nature of the people doing the propagandizing, and the millions of dollars they are willing to spend to spread their lies, while claiming moral superiority over the rest of us sinners.

So, it seems to this alien that if the law of this land is based on the Constitution, a document that never once mentions God, and only mentions religion to put safeguards in place about elections, then to pledge allegiance to a flag, and also mention God is obviously against the intent of those who wrote the Constitution.

They weren’t Christians, and the God they believed in has little resemblance to the God of the current propagandists, who clearly represent the religious intolerance that the Constitution was designed to avert. But that of course is the opinion of an alien. And everybody knows about them there foreigners. Ask Pat Buchanan.

Blessings to you from Douglas Buchanan, who is not, Praise the Lord, related to the above.