LIMBAUGH REJECTS COMPANY THAT SUSPENDED ADS FROM SHOW OVER FLUKE REMARKS

[mojack]

"the church does not have the power to call that shot and those religious organizations should not have the right to ban medical prescriptions" Do you believe our Gov to have these rights?

Gov. provides security and health opportunities. You have the right to decide for yourself.

[dhr05b]

??? How does that influence what has transpired with Limbaugh. It's not funny - people are often called on to help shed light on important situation.

Do you realize how silly that sounds for you to think it's peculiar that someone is called upon to testify to an issue?

Please don't assume the position of moral and ethical superiority. Of course it's not funny. It's not funny that people show a complete and utter lack of disregard for the documents this great Country was founded upon.

Do you not find the timing interesting, to say the least? The Democrats are in a frenzy trying to correct the public's opinion of the regime after the mandate infuriated a majority of the country - of course it's interesting that only days after that fiasco they are reaching out to 'real Americans' who agree with Obama's actions.

[solidlogic]

It's the Old Testament, and I have read it. It's obvious that the original topic has fallen by the wayside, and I will spare those who click on this thread the irritation of reading something they didn't intend to.

I hear you, that's probably a wise decision friend.

[mojack]

Please don't assume the position of moral and ethical superiority. Of course it's not funny. It's not funny that people show a complete and utter lack of disregard for the documents this great Country was founded upon.

Do you not find the timing interesting, to say the least? The Democrats are in a frenzy trying to correct the public's opinion of the regime after the mandate infuriated a majority of the country - of course it's interesting that only days after that fiasco they are reaching out to 'real Americans' who agree with Obama's actions.

Not funny, or not peculiar. As a manager of projects, back in the day, I very often called on testimonies to sell my idea to the companies C-level executives. That's standard operation. Congress does it on a daily basis. Check cspan etc...

Right media have you to believe it's peculiar! That's a laugh my man! But you guys fall right in!

Edited March 9, 2012 by mojack

[solidlogic]

Please don't assume the position of moral and ethical superiority. Of course it's not funny. It's not funny that people show a complete and utter lack of disregard for the documents this great Country was founded upon.

Do you not find the timing interesting, to say the least? The Democrats are in a frenzy trying to correct the public's opinion of the regime after the mandate infuriated a majority of the country - of course it's interesting that only days after that fiasco they are reaching out to 'real Americans' who agree with Obama's actions.

So because women want equal rights on health issues, thats showing disregard for the documents this country was founded upon? You mean those documents that were written by deists who would have most likely viewed this health opposition as utterly ridiculous.

[dhr05b]

Well MahEr is a comedian so in a way I would say you are right. The majority of people that can't grasp Maher's humor and perspective are religious zealots. Seems to be the demographic that strays from most logical perspectives in general so I'm sure Maher is simply too "controversial" Reason isn't for everyone P.

So now we, who were offended when Maher tweeted "Jesus just f***** Tim Tebow bad!" during the playoffs are religious zealots? You sure are a hypocritical people, to be so concerned about women's health yet champion such a vile mysoginist.

[TexasGranny]

Just to clear up one point. Any woman in the USA that needs contraceptives for any reason is already covered by TitleX. In case you think there may not be a clinic near Georgetown University, there are 15 within 5 miles of the campus. Any female that needs "women's health care" and does not have funds or insurance qualifies.

HHS

History of Title X

The Title X Family Planning program ["Population Research and Voluntary Family Planning Programs" (Public Law 91-572)], was enacted in 1970 as Title X of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only Federal grant program dedicated solely to providing individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services. The Title X program is designed to provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them. By law, priority is given to persons from low-income families.

The Title X Family Planning program is administered within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of Population Affairs (OPA) by the Office of Family Planning (OFP). At least 90 percent of appropriated funding is used for clinical family planning services as described in the statute and regulations (45 CFR Part 59).

Nearly 100 Title X grantees provide family planning services to more than five million women and men through a network of over 4,500 community-based clinics that include State and local health departments, tribal organizations, hospitals, university health centers, independent clinics, community health centers, faith-based organizations, and other public and private nonprofit agencies. In approximately 75% of U.S. counties, there is at least one clinic that receives Title X funds and provides services as required under the Title X statute.

Activities

Over the past 40 years, Title X Family Planning clinics have played a critical role in ensuring access to a broad range of family planning and related preventive health services for millions of low-income or uninsured individuals. In addition to contraceptive services and related counseling, Title X-supported clinics provide a number of related preventive health services such as: patient education and counseling; breast and pelvic examinations; breast and cervical cancer screening according to nationally recognized standards of care; sexually transmitted disease (STD) and Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) prevention education, counseling, testing and referral; and pregnancy diagnosis and counseling. By law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.

The Title X program also supports three key functions, authorized under the Title X statute aimed at improving the quality of family planning services and assisting clinics with responding to client needs. These functions include: (1) training for family planning clinic personnel through ten regional general training programs and three national training programs that focus on clinical training, enhancing quality family planning services for males, and/or coordination of training activities on the national level; (2) data collection and family planning research aimed at improving the delivery of family planning services; and, (3) information dissemination and community based education and outreach activities. These functions help to ensure that family planning services are evidence-based and of high quality.

The Title X family planning program is intended to assist individuals in determining the number and spacing of their children. This promotes positive birth outcomes and healthy families. The education, counseling, and medical services available in Title X-funded clinic settings assist in achieving these goals.

**********************************************************

The whole point of this fiasco is President Obama's total disregard of the constitution's First Amendment granting religious freedom. The constitution forbids him or any president or congress from making laws that infringe on religion. You can argue all you want, but Ms Fluck's testimony was rejected by the Oversight Committee because it did not relate to the issue of the hearing. Soooo, in saunters Ms. Pelosi and holds another hearing so Ms Fluck can get her one-sided message out. She entered Georgetown for the express purpose of challenging their religious beliefs - she stated this in her interviews. It was a put-up deal to detract from the real trampling of the constitution. Now, if you believe the Constitution is just an old piece of brown paper, you are probably not concerned, but my ancestors fought and died for what is written on it and if we allow it to be trampled into the dirt, our country will become no better than Greece or any of the other socialist european countries.

As for Rush's statements - they were out of line and he has apologized. There has certainly been no apology from the liberal radio hosts that have made slanderous remards about conservative wormen.

BTW, Rush's popularity has not diminished because of this.

[dhr05b]

So because women want equal rights on health issues, thats showing disregard for the documents this country was founded upon? You mean those documents that were written by deists who would have most likely viewed this health opposition as utterly ridiculous.

Incorrect again. 3 deists total (7 Congregationalists, 2 Methodists, 2 Dutch Reformed, 10 Presbyterians, 27-28 Episcopalians, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, and a couple of Quakers). Check out usconstitution.net

And again, this has everything to do with Religious Freedom - and nothing to do with equal rights. If you don't agree with the policy of the institution, go somewhere else for law school.

[Iownya83]

So i guess it is alright to call a female a SSSS and a Prostitute just because she wants rights to contraceptives!!!! So all of you who are champion Rush agree that if this comment was made at your wife, mother, daughter, granddaughter or other females in your family I guess it is OK because he has free speech. Well some of you should maybe think about this before going out on a limb.

First of all I wouldn't have to worry about my wife or daughter( if i had one) and other family members because they would not have got up in front of Congress and told the world that they deserve special treatment for anything, and literally asked for the comments made due to her arrogance and LIES. " I can't afford law school because I have this 3000 dollar per MONTH bill for the pill" ( which I think is max about 200). WTF she is what she was called if that is the case and if a family member were that way I'd probably already have called them worse then that. As for free speech he said he was wrong and apologized. Did she except NO she didn't so as far as I'm concerned its over.

If you don't like like rush just stick with your Obama media but I think your in the wrong place from the amount of negs I see you got. You might just as well move on!

The LEFT just piss me off sorry had to vent.

[caz1104]

Gov. provides security and health opportunities. You have the right to decide for yourself.

I agree it should be an individual choice and not a taxpayer burden.Fed Gov imo main premise is to protect the citizens and its constitution..................the rest should be handled on the local level. Best to all

[solidlogic]

So now we, who were offended when Maher tweeted "Jesus just f***** Tim Tebow bad!" during the playoffs are religious zealots? You sure are a hypocritical people, to be so concerned about women's health yet champion such a vile mysoginist.

Huhhh,, Yeah, he's a comedian who tells adult jokes, and I'm an adult who can deal with dirty jokes without demanding 10 lashings hail mary's. Bill Maher's jokes are a completely separate issue from women's health rights. So I must find Mahe'r offensive in order to be concerned about human life, otherwise I'm hypocritical ???That is not a logical my friend.

[dhr05b]

[quote dhr05b]

1. So you think an organization should abandon their deeply held convictions (that they've been working on for 2,000+ years) instead of the minority getting their education or working elsewhere if they disagree with the policies up front?

2. Similarly, her testimony regarding a married female and her husband left 'you' with thoughts of contraceptives for uses other than sex, but you can't be sure that she DOES have a health issue. Also, I don't ascribe to the belief that Viagra should be paid for by someone else. You must be confusing me for someone else, as I have yet to even imply that's appropriate.

3. I'll follow my beliefs and leave you alone as long as you don't continue to try to cram your beliefs down my throat and the Constitution's.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A1. These contraceptives were not available 2,000 years ago! We're not talking about abortion. Times change, medicine has evolved.

A2. And I will not assume... I've known situations where women could not use certain contraceptives and also situations where contraceptives were absolutely necessary for medical issues.

A3. You kept me in this conversation - I tried to back out but you said it's not finished! Therefore, I thought you wanted more of my opinions!

Frankly, I don't know what the hell you're arguing for: Rush, Right Wing, Mind Reading or Religious Power

Cherry Picking

1. My comments on the Church's deeply held convictions were general. I don't care if they started believing contraception was against their values YESTERDAY. You set a precedence. You take away this institution's rights to disallow contraceptives in their health care plans, you slowly begin to degrade the Church and the Constitution as a whole.

2. I never said birth control wasn't used outside of sex. You pointed my flaw in assuming this couple used birth control to prevent pregnancy (though in this context, that's what they're referring to), and I responded, pointing out your flaw in assuming they're using birth control for things outside of sex (i.e. medical issues).

3. You tried to summarize the issue and call it quits, but I wanted to articulate my thought process here: that the Constitution protects the rights of the Church here.

I can appreciate going back and forth with someone so steadfast in their convictions. I truly mean that. I just enjoy arguing my case sometimes.

[solidlogic]

Incorrect again. 3 deists total (7 Congregationalists, 2 Methodists, 2 Dutch Reformed, 10 Presbyterians, 27-28 Episcopalians, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, and a couple of Quakers). Check out usconstitution.net

And again, this has everything to do with Religious Freedom - and nothing to do with equal rights. If you don't agree with the policy of the institution, go somewhere else for law school.

Hmmm, really of the PRIMARY founding fathers.....

efferson-deist

Madison-deist

Franklin-deist

Washington-Deist

Paine - Desit

Adams - Deist

Although not really a "founding father", Lincoln-Deist

Jon Jay was the only orthodox christian amongst the primaries, by my count that's more than 3 and the overwhelming majority of the PRIMARY figures, or at least the figures everyone equates with our founding fathers.

Simply do any search regarding deism and founding fathers.

[dhr05b]

Huhhh,, Yeah, he's a comedian who tells adult jokes, and I'm an adult who can deal with dirty jokes without demanding 10 lashings hail mary's. Bill Maher's jokes are a completely separate issue from women's health rights. So I must find Mahe'r offensive in order to be concerned about human life, otherwise I'm hypocritical ???That is not a logical my friend.

Reread what I said. Mysoginy is not equivalent to women's rights, but I see this time you interchanged 'women's rights' for human life. I'm an adult as well, but find his comments on women despicable, and not just because he speaks out against women of my political affiliation.

You can't argue that you believe the Church is wrong because women have health rights, and then uphold Bill Maher - and not be recognized as a hypocrite.

[Iownya83]

Huhhh,, Yeah, he's a comedian who tells adult jokes, and I'm an adult who can deal with dirty jokes without demanding 10 lashings hail mary's. Bill Maher's jokes are a completely separate issue from women's health rights. So I must find Mahe'r offensive in order to be concerned about human life, otherwise I'm hypocritical ???That is not a logical my friend.

If they were directed as a whole I would understand but when he directs it at a single individual like Palin or any other individual then he is wrong also. Comedian status doesn't give you any more right then talk show host. But ole Bill wasn't man enough to apologize was he no it was just a joke right ............Grow up!

[dhr05b]

Hmmm, really of the PRIMARY founding fathers.....

efferson-deist

Madison-deist

Franklin-deist

Washington-Deist

Paine - Desit

Adams - Deist

Although not really a "founding father", Lincoln-Deist

Jon Jay was the only orthodox christian amongst the primaries, by my count that's more than 3 and the overwhelming majority of the PRIMARY figures, or at least the figures everyone equates with our founding fathers.

Simply do any search regarding deism and founding fathers.

I don't equate founding fathers with the authors of the Constitution. We're speaking of the Constitution here, therefore the term is 'Framers'. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constutional Convention: 3 Roman Catholics, 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, and 2 Methodists. This leaves my original 3 deists.

Can't rewrite history.

[solidlogic]

Reread what I said. Mysoginy is not equivalent to women's rights, but I see this time you interchanged 'women's rights' for human life. I'm an adult as well, but find his comments on women despicable, and not just because he speaks out against women of my political affiliation.

You can't argue that you believe the Church is wrong because women have health rights, and then uphold Bill Maher - and not be recognized as a hypocrite.

did I ever once make that comparison? you did, I pointed out the difference between enjoying a dirty joke and having compassion for human/women's rights which are completely separate issues. You were the one saying you can't have one without the other by implying it's hypocritical to support women's issues if I don't find a joke about Tim tebow and jesus offensive, and in your example you didn't even mention women or comments on women, you mentioned comments on tim tebow.

[TexasGranny]

Hmmm, really of the PRIMARY founding fathers.....

efferson-deist

Madison-deist

Franklin-deist

Washington-Deist

Paine - Desit

Adams - Deist

Although not really a "founding father", Lincoln-Deist

Jon Jay was the only orthodox christian amongst the primaries, by my count that's more than 3 and the overwhelming majority of the PRIMARY figures, or at least the figures everyone equates with our founding fathers.

Simply do any search regarding deism and founding fathers.

You can find false rhetoric on the internet about anything. If you really want to know what the Founding Fathers religious beliefs were, you need to read actual documents written by them and study their speeches. http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=113

“The Founding Fathers & Deism”

I notice that your newspaper has an ongoing debate concerning the religious nature of the Founding Fathers. A recent letter claimed that most of the Founding Fathers were deists, and pointed to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, and Madison as proof. After making this charge, the writer acknowledged the “voluminous writings”" of the Founders, but it appears that she has not read those writings herself. However, this is no surprise since the U. S. Department of Education claims that only 5 percent of high schools graduates know how to examine primary source documentation.

Interestingly, the claims in this recent letter to the editor are characteristic of similar claims appearing in hundreds of letters to the editor across the nation. The standard assertion is that the Founders were deists. Deists? What is a deist? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms “deist,” “agnostic,” and “atheist” appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. Do the Founders fit any of these definitions?

None of the notable Founders fit this description. Thomas Paine, in his discourse on “The Study of God,” forcefully asserts that it is “the error of schools” to teach sciences without “reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin.” He laments that “the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism.” Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning” built “on Christ, the Corner-Stone.” Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist.

Nor does George Washington. He was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn “above all” was the “religion of Jesus Christ,” and that to learn this would make them “greater and happier than they already are”; on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that “To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian”; and when he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that “without a humble imitation” of “the Divine Author of our blessed religion” we “can never hope to be a happy nation.” Washington's own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.

Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton's death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. And at the time he did face his death in his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton met and prayed with the Rev. Mason and Bishop Moore, wherein he reaffirmed to him his readiness to face God should he die, having declared to them “a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ.” At that time, he also partook of Holy Communion with Bishop Moore.

The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible.” Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson's own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison's writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be “fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.” And while Madison did allude to a “wall of separation,” contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that “wall.” According to Madison, the purpose of that “wall” was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.

None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.

The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.

Any portrayal of any handful of Founders as deists is inaccurate. (If this group had really wanted some irreligious Founders, they should have chosen Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen). Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven.

**************************************************************

See how easy it was for me to find documentation that says they were religious.

[mojack]

dh - I make no assumptions on their use; but I can appreciate everything else you wrote!

[dhr05b]

did I ever once make that comparison? you did, I pointed out the difference between enjoying a dirty joke and having compassion for human/women's rights which are completely separate issues. You were the one saying you can't have one without the other by implying it's hypocritical to support women's issues if I don't find a joke about Tim tebow and jesus offensive, and in your example you didn't even mention women or comments on women, you mentioned comments on tim tebow.

I'll drop it after this, because I know everyone is tired of my banter. The Tim Tebow joke is an illustration of Maher's venom. I commented directly about Maher's mysoginy - calling Sarah Palin awful things and saying Michelle Bachmann will split the MILF vote. You obviously don't find Bill Maher offensive, and in fact enjoy his comedy. I'm pointing out the irony in Bill Maher's awful comments about women, while for the last 2 and half hours you've been speaking of women's health issues.

That's all. I'll agree to disagree here. It's almost lunch time.

[Man_Kind]

Where is the outrage for Palin or Malkin.....Oh thats right a comedian spoke that trash so it okay... Who just happen to give the Obama campaign $1,000,000.00........So that make that POS 's statement acceptable for the Left women...Such Bull ****....Thanks.....Chris...

Bill is just a Maher pimple on my Azz ! Just a left wing lib. pieace of crap. Sick of this double standard **** taken place.

Edited March 9, 2012 by Man_Kind

[dhr05b]

You can find false rhetoric on the internet about anything. If you really want to know what the Founding Fathers religious beliefs were, you need to read actual documents written by them and study their speeches. http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=113

“The Founding Fathers & Deism”

I notice that your newspaper has an ongoing debate concerning the religious nature of the Founding Fathers. A recent letter claimed that most of the Founding Fathers were deists, and pointed to Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, Hamilton, and Madison as proof. After making this charge, the writer acknowledged the “voluminous writings”" of the Founders, but it appears that she has not read those writings herself. However, this is no surprise since the U. S. Department of Education claims that only 5 percent of high schools graduates know how to examine primary source documentation.

Interestingly, the claims in this recent letter to the editor are characteristic of similar claims appearing in hundreds of letters to the editor across the nation. The standard assertion is that the Founders were deists. Deists? What is a deist? In dictionaries like Websters, Funk & Wagnalls, Century, and others, the terms “deist,” “agnostic,” and “atheist” appear as synonyms. Therefore, the range of a deist spans from those who believe there is no God, to those who believe in a distant, impersonal creator of the universe, to those who believe there is no way to know if God exists. Do the Founders fit any of these definitions?

None of the notable Founders fit this description. Thomas Paine, in his discourse on “The Study of God,” forcefully asserts that it is “the error of schools” to teach sciences without “reference to the Being who is author of them: for all the principles of science are of Divine origin.” He laments that “the evil that has resulted from the error of the schools in teaching [science without God] has been that of generating in the pupils a species of atheism.” Paine not only believed in God, he believed in a reality beyond the visible world.

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach “the necessity of a public religion . . . and the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern.” Consider also the fact that Franklin proposed a Biblical inscription for the Seal of the United States; that he chose a New Testament verse for the motto of the Philadelphia Hospital; that he was one of the chief voices behind the establishment of a paid chaplain in Congress; and that when in 1787 when Franklin helped found the college which bore his name, it was dedicated as “a nursery of religion and learning” built “on Christ, the Corner-Stone.” Franklin certainly doesn't fit the definition of a deist.

Nor does George Washington. He was an open promoter of Christianity. For example, in his speech on May 12, 1779, he claimed that what children needed to learn “above all” was the “religion of Jesus Christ,” and that to learn this would make them “greater and happier than they already are”; on May 2, 1778, he charged his soldiers at Valley Forge that “To the distinguished character of patriot, it should be our highest glory to add the more distinguished character of Christian”; and when he resigned his commission as commander-in-chief of the military on June 8, 1783, he reminded the nation that “without a humble imitation” of “the Divine Author of our blessed religion” we “can never hope to be a happy nation.” Washington's own adopted daughter declared of Washington that you might as well question his patriotism as to question his Christianity.

Alexander Hamilton was certainly no deist. For example, Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great: (1) Christianity, and (2) a Constitution formed under Christianity. Only Hamilton's death two months later thwarted his plan of starting a missionary society to promote Christian government. And at the time he did face his death in his duel with Aaron Burr, Hamilton met and prayed with the Rev. Mason and Bishop Moore, wherein he reaffirmed to him his readiness to face God should he die, having declared to them “a lively faith in God's mercy through Christ, with a thankful remembrance of the death of Christ.” At that time, he also partook of Holy Communion with Bishop Moore.

The reader, as do many others, claimed that Jefferson omitted all miraculous events of Jesus from his “Bible.” Rarely do those who make this claim let Jefferson speak for himself. Jefferson's own words explain that his intent for that book was not for it to be a “Bible,” but rather for it to be a primer for the Indians on the teachings of Christ (which is why Jefferson titled that work, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth”). What Jefferson did was to take the “red letter” portions of the New Testament and publish these teachings in order to introduce the Indians to Christian morality. And as President of the United States, Jefferson signed a treaty with the Kaskaskia tribe wherein he provided—at the government's expense—Christian missionaries to the Indians. In fact, Jefferson himself declared, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus.” While many might question this claim, the fact remains that Jefferson called himself a Christian, not a deist.

James Madison trained for ministry with the Rev. Dr. John Witherspoon, and Madison's writings are replete with declarations of his faith in God and in Christ. In fact, for proof of this, one only need read his letter to Attorney General Bradford wherein Madison laments that public officials are not bold enough about their Christian faith in public and that public officials should be “fervent advocates in the cause of Christ.” And while Madison did allude to a “wall of separation,” contemporary writers frequently refuse to allow Madison to provide his own definition of that “wall.” According to Madison, the purpose of that “wall” was only to prevent Congress from passing a national law to establish a national religion.

None of the Founders mentioned fit the definition of a deist. And as is typical with those who make this claim, they name only a handful of Founders and then generalize the rest. This in itself is a mistake, for there are over two hundred Founders (fifty-five at the Constitutional Convention, ninety who framed the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights, and fifty-six who signed the Declaration) and any generalization of the Founders as deists is completely inaccurate.

The reason that such critics never mention any other Founders is evident. For example, consider what must be explained away if the following signers of the Constitution were to be mentioned: Charles Pinckney and John Langdon—founders of the American Bible Society; James McHenry—founder of the Baltimore Bible Society; Rufus King—helped found a Bible society for Anglicans; Abraham Baldwin—a chaplain in the Revolution and considered the youngest theologian in America; Roger Sherman, William Samuel Johnson, John Dickinson, and Jacob Broom—also theological writers; James Wilson and William Patterson—placed on the Supreme Court by President George Washington, they had prayer over juries in the U. S. Supreme Court room; and the list could go on. And this does not even include the huge number of thoroughly evangelical Christians who signed the Declaration or who helped frame the Bill of Rights.

Any portrayal of any handful of Founders as deists is inaccurate. (If this group had really wanted some irreligious Founders, they should have chosen Henry Dearborne, Charles Lee, or Ethan Allen). Perhaps critics should spend more time reading the writings of the Founders to discover their religious beliefs for themselves rather than making such sweeping accusations which are so easily disproven.

**************************************************************

See how easy it was for me to find documentation that says they were religious.

Well stated. Thanks, TG for allowing this thread to continue. This (preservation of the Constitution) is something I am deeply concerned with, so I appreciate the opportunity for discussion.

[solidlogic]

I don't equate founding fathers with the authors of the Constitution. We're speaking of the Constitution here, therefore the term is 'Framers'. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constutional Convention: 3 Roman Catholics, 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, and 2 Methodists. This leaves my original 3 deists.

Can't rewrite history.

Hmmm and the founding fathers who the MAJORITY of the country deems the primary figures in the development of our nation had nothing to do with the "framing" of our constitution huh? Interesting. You can hang on the coattails of the secondary "framers" involved, but the general consensus amongst Americans is that our KEY founding figures who had the MOST impact on our constitutional framework were Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Frankilin, Jay, madison, Hamilton, the majority of Key figures being deists.

I'll drop it after this, because I know everyone is tired of my banter. The Tim Tebow joke is an illustration of Maher's venom. I commented directly about Maher's mysoginy - calling Sarah Palin awful things and saying Michelle Bachmann will split the MILF vote. You obviously don't find Bill Maher offensive, and in fact enjoy his comedy. I'm pointing out the irony in Bill Maher's awful comments about women, while for the last 2 and half hours you've been speaking of women's health issues.

That's all. I'll agree to disagree here. It's almost lunch time.

In regards to Tebow that's because unlike many believers, I can separate reality from fantasy. I know it's hard for you to believe that adults can enjoy dirty jokes and still be decent human beings, I see that's hard for you to grasp. Yeah I think the jokes about those two nuts Palin and Bachman were absolutely hilarious, but I still think they are entitled to equal health rights. See how that works?

[TexasGranny]

Hmmm and the founding fathers who the MAJORITY of the country deems the primary figures in the development of our nation had nothing to do with the "framing" of our constitution huh? Interesting. You can hang on the coattails of the secondary "framers" involved, but the general consensus amongst Americans is that our KEY founding figures who had the MOST impact on our constitutional framework were Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Frankilin, Jay, madison, Hamilton, the majority of Key figures being deists.

In regards to Tebow that's because unlike many believers, I can separate reality from fantasy. I know it's hard for you to believe that adults can enjoy dirty jokes and still be decent human beings, I see that's hard for you to grasp. Yeah I think the jokes about those two nuts Palin and Bachman were absolutely hilarious, but I still think they are entitled to equal health rights. See how that works?

It is quite obvious from your avatar that you are an aethist which is the real reason you have no problem with Maher's filthy "jokes". So I assume that were Sarah Palin your Mother, Grandmother, wife or sister, it would be just fine to slander her in that way, all in the context of being "funny".

So, you choose to ignore my post above which clearly points out that Paine, Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison were very religious men not to mention all of the others that signed the Constitution.

[mojack]

It is quite obvious from your avatar that you are an aethist which is the real reason you have no problem with Maher's filthy "jokes". So I assume that were Sarah Palin your Mother, Grandmother, wife or sister, it would be just fine to slander her in that way, all in the context of being "funny".

Granny I wouldn't make all those assumptions re: Solidlogic. Human rights are different from the filthy jokes that comedians like Maher or Miller may use.

Rush wasn't suppose to be a comedian on stage or air.

Edited March 9, 2012 by mojack