Funding of Christian missionaries was probably (without my looking into it) done in a non-sectarian, non-denominational way. I believe they much more had an issue with so-called “organized” religion, not with religion itself.

I don’t think they had any issue with religious views themselves. I’d suspect it would be debatable if they would’ve argued in favor of it if the modern overall issue was raised — more than likely they simply didn’t imagine what could possibly be objectionable about it, not that they would have disagreed with modern objections. We are all products of our environment in many ways. No less so the FFs, who did have plenty of Christian influences… their disgust with religions derived from abuses of the Church to suppress dissent and gain power over others, not with notions of God.

It’s clear from their writing that they DID believe in “separation of religious functions from civil authority”.

Any failure or inadequacy of a non-white or non-European society is obviously due to the consequences of evil colonialism reverberating down through history.

All non-whites / non-Europeans (1) are noble and honorable, (2) live in harmony with Gaia, (3) have no racial or ethnic or cultural biases of their own, (4) have societal and cultural norms that “work for them” (so therefore those cultures have equal if not superior moral value compared to ours).

If there is any conflict or disagreement between some white/ Western/ capitalistic/ group and any other, that “other” is automatically considered innocent and oppressed, while the white/ Western/ capitalistic is just as automatically judged to be racist, bigoted, oppressive, greedy, hateful, and arrogant.

The short version of this Progressive-Liberal understanding of “how things are” is the often-repeated “only whites can be racists — and ALL whites ARE racists”.

McCarthy WAS NOT RIGHT! He was a LYING PIG who wanted fame & power.

It turns out that we were able to read some Soviet intelligence cables of that time, in what are known as the VENONA decrypts (secret at the time, obviously, but now revealed). These decrypts, along with the revelations of CPUSA defectors Whitaker Chambers, Elizabeth Bentley, and Louis Budenz, prove unequivocally that McCarthy was absolutely correct. It is now clear that he was being fed highly accurate information by loyal American sources in the State Department and FBI, to the great discomfiture of the Truman Administration, which moved heaven and earth to find out who his sources were. McCarthy’s information was so good he knew the results — chapter and verse – of closed-door loyalty board hearings within days of the event.

For example, consider Solomon Adler, one of those accused by McCarthy. (Adler was/is now widely “credited” with playing an instrumental role in losing China to the Reds by cutting off the loan of gold to the Chinese Nationalists.) His contributions figuring prominently in the VENONA decrypts, he left the country under a loyalty board investigation, and ultimately wound up in…Communist China. You know, the way loyal Americans tended to.

A few other nuggets. V. Frank Coe – now proven by the KGB archives to have been a Soviet agent — also wound up in Communist China.

Other accused: Frederick V. Field, Harry Dexter White (Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, and the lead U.S. negotiator at the Bretton Woods conference), to name a few. All guilty as sin.

Bottom line: McCarthy had a point — the government had been seriously penetrated by Communist agents. He was absolutely correct.

So I beg to differ. You do need to read the history of McCarthy. Whatever his other faults, real or imagined, he fought hard — and almost singlehandedly – to protect this country, and was smeared mercilessly for his efforts.

=================================

I believe we need to steal the term “racism” back, by taking a leaf from the Leftists’ communist predecessors with regards to “democracy”: Remember the “German Democratic Republic“? Neither a Republic nor Democratic.

The fun part is, we can do it and still tell Truth, not Pravda.

Whenever you open a discussion regarding anything with a Democrat, work hard — very hard — to get in a line something to the effect of “Well, I’ve just never understood how Democrats can have such a long history of promoting racism against negros/blacks/Africans/whatever-the-PC-term-is-today”

At this point, of course, they are going to almost certainly be dumbfounded, possibly spluttering and perhaps even verging on apoplectic.

It is a certainty that they will be utterly confused, however, so take your advantage and run with it.

Begin discussing how it is that they have decided so imperiously that black people who, by equality, should be presumed capable of doing virtually anything which whites or Asian/Oriental/whatever-the-PC-term-is-today can do, are instead taken as a matter of course by the Democrats to be utterly incapable of pulling themselves out of impoverished conditions as those two groups — including people of every stripe, creed, nationality, or religious affiliation — have managed to do in America.

Why/how is it that the Democrats insist on racist policies which basically claim that blacks cannot help themselves, unlike, say, Jews, who have fought anti-Semitism not just for a couple centuries but for millenia, yet still managed to succeed and succeed well.

Why/how is it that blacks are incapable of doing exactly what so many others have managed to do, which is to educate themselves and produce the kind of genius and work product to excel as a group in American culture.

Now, around this time, they might be regaining their feet, and throw out something to the effect of, “well, those groups had no history of slavery to overcome…”

Do not allow them to retain this advantage — knock it out from under their feet immediately by pointing out that the plight of the “coolee” and their descendants — workers from the Orient — was little, if any, better well into the 20th century.

The “coolee” was worked just as brutally, just as uncaringly, as any black slave, performing backbreaking labor for pennies a day, 10,12,14 hours a day, while valued less than a good horse. There were “no oriental” water fountains, too, and any “oriental” who dared look at a white woman sexually, well, he could look forward to the same sort of lynching a black man could.

Yet despite this disparagement, the descendants of those men and women have managed to not only succeed, but usually to surpass the descendants of the average WASP. They rank better financially, and educationally, than the average White Boy.

Now, of course, is the time to press it home… Ask — no, demand — to know why it is that Democrats insist on such racist policies which treat blacks as “lesser people”, utterly incapable of helping themselves.

Around this time their heads should explode with apoplexy, or, alternately, a swing might be made at your face. Be ready for it.

If they do, however, start to regain their feet, then it is time to press home on the history of the Democratic party’s racism.

Cite, first off, the fact of the abolition of slavery in the south, as a part of Reconstruction, was a Republican project, and was strongly opposed by Democrats, who used white racism as a recruiting tool to gain prominence throughout the South, to the point where Democrats are, even now, 140 years later, the dominant party affiliation in the region.

Forward to the 1940s. Cite from the Official 1940 GOP Party Platform:

Then contrapose this with the 1948 Democrats, which split off to form the Dixiecrats, a blatantly racist political affiliation. These people, rabid racists all — over a million — were Democrats in 1944, and they were Democrats again in 1952.

It continued into the 1960s, at the 1964 Democratic National Convention, wherein duly elected black representatives were blatantly disenfranchised by Johnson and Humphrey. I have no doubt that it was this treatment which contributed strongly to the race riots that occurred later on in the 1960s.

And it continues on through today. In the 2004 campaign, John Kerry’s campaign staff did not include a single prominent black person until someone commented on it publicly. And we all know how the immensely talented and highly competent Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice were treated at the hands of liberal cartoonists, with blatantly racist depictions.

Q.E.D.: The conclusion is inescapable. The Democrats are a party of racism, founded in racism, devoted to promoting racism through the last 140 years, and inexcusably supporting racist ideas and perceptions for that entire time.

This is an inaccurate statement. Most professed a belief in Christ that tied to their believe in God. Hence, they were Christians in most cases.

What they did not trust in was the idea of Established Religious Authority, particularly when intermixed with the power of the State.

I would, however, point out that the idea that the term “separation of Church and State” does not appear in early commentaries and letters is an equally disingenuous claim. I cite at least one Madison quote from a letter to Rev Jasper Adams, spring 1832:

…[I]t may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points….

The above partial quote does not defacto use the phrase, “Church and State”, but it’s rather blatantly self-evident that the terms “rights of religion” and “the Civil authority” are a distinction without a difference.

And I found that while not even making a serious effort to debunk the idea, just while checking out another quote. It’s clear that the notion existed, even if the exact term used was microscopically different in wording.

It selects a number of well-known (and not so well-known) FFs and discusses their attitudes and presumptions and the justification for such ideas in their writings. They were a disparate lot, Protestants and Catholics and Jews and other creeds — a good read.

It was researched and written by R.P. Nettelhorst who is an Extremely Honest, Fair, Knowledgeable Christian Historian and Minister.

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

Yes, while I made a boo boo by not stipulating it was “paper money” which I was referring to, most understood what I meant..

And it is true that due to the actions of some SELFISH Christians “In God We Trust” did appear ON COINS where it SHOULD NOT HAVE EVER BEEN in the first place!

(Makes me ask WHICH god as humans have INVENTED and named some 25,000 of them SO FAR!)

It WAS put on our paper money ONLY do to McCarthy’s Communist Witch Hunt.

PERIOD!

END OF THAT STORY!

Those who have actually studied American history know:

A The MAJORITY of our Founding Fathers were NOT Christians they were, as were MOST of the more successful and more educated colonists, DEISTS!

“Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian, the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776”

[Lynn R. Buzzard, Exec Dir of Christian Legal Society, as quoted in _They Haven’t Got a Prayer_, Elgin IL: David C. Cook, 1982, p. 81]

B. The MAJORITY of our Founding Fathers as well as the Colonists WANTED the Complete Separation of Church and State!

For as Madison said:

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.”

Pres. James Madison, 1803

And I LOVE what one of OUR MOST Important Founding Fathers, Thomas Jefferson said:

“The Christian god is Cruel, Capacious Vindictive and Unjust!”

Lafayette hit it on the head when he said:

“If the liberties of the American people are ever destroyed, they will fall by the hands of the clergy.”

Lafayette
(1789)]