Talk about rewriting history....all three of these men were born in the colonies and never suffered any persecution for what they believed in Britain.  Only the most historically illiterate would claim Franklin or Jefferson to Christianity, though I think a claim could be made for Washington.  It was never the founding Fathers' intention to set up a God-free nation, however, just one that didn't push a particular religion onto its inhabitants.  From the very beginning America has been intended as a place for religious tolerance where anybody can believe whatever they want to believe about God, etc.  Contrary to what some atheists believe, few Christians have forcing Christianity down people's throats at the top of their agenda for America. 

I never said that any of those three men were born in Britain, so please don't "put words in my mouth".

My grammar was poor and to clairfy my statement, all three men experienced persecution from Britain in many different forms. Using the preposition IN was a typo.

Just to be clear, I said Christians generally do not favor forcing people to be Christians.  A generic mention of "God" on a coin or in a pledge hardly equals  forcing Christianity down anybody's throats.  I, for one, think it's a joke anyway.  America as a nation couldn't care less about God; t hey might as well take out the "under God" clause in the pledge and on the coin.

Just like it's not fair for the government to use my tax dollars to finance such things as the NEA, which constantly promotes art blasphemous towards Xianity, and abortion clinics.

As an aside, what "faith-based" groups do you have in mind here?

Uhuh. I guess the American Revolution was all about some silly dispute over who should pay for dinner?

This thread is not about the separation of church and state, in fact, this thread has very little to do with the separation of church and state. It has to do with the changes in US history that is being made by various Christians influences.

But since we are on the subject, persecution can come in different forms and it isn't only religion. People can be persecuted for race, color, religion and politics to name a few.

How you got stuck going in this direction is confusing to me because I believe my post is labeled 'Liars for Jesus'.

Also, did you go to the link I provided to read the research from the author? I guess not since you want to focus on stuff which is barely a foot note for me on this thread.

But since you asked, Why not read some of Ben Franklin's writings. I'm sure I can find some stuff from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson too.

Which reminds me that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine (an Atheist!) were good friends...

Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" & "The Rights of Man" had a heavy influence on the American Revolution. Also Thomas Paine's writings had an influence on some of the most important documents of our country, including the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

"It would not be an exaggeration to say that without Thomas Paine there may not have been an American Revolution."

http://www.buzzflash.com/hartmann/06/02/har06002.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine#American_Revolution

Try reading Ben Franklin's letter to the London Packet, dated June 3rd, 1772 concerning the Church of England and land/taxes.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions14.html

 Allow me to clear up your confusion.  IT'S BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP!  Your original post states:

 These two statements nestled right next to each other make you sound like you are suggesting that these three men experienced religious persecution in/from (or whatever you actually meant to write here) Britain and set up America so that wouldn't happen here.  I am suggesting that these men didn't receive any sort of religious persecution from Britain since they were born in America and never lived in Britain.  How could Britain persecute them religiously?  The Anglican Church had no power in America which was the whole point of the pilgrims coming over here in the first place.

What exactly do you think I asked, and how is reading Benjamin Franklin supposed to answer this question?  I am fully aware that BF and TJ were not Christians.  Few maintain that they were.  At the same time, though they were not Christians, they were both sympathetic to many of the values of Christianity.  BF was good friends with George Whitefield, and was the one who suggested every session of Congress begin with prayer, a custom they still practice to this day.

And....

Sorry, but you are boring me with this religious persecution stuff. I've stated my facts, provided you with quotes and links to my sources.

Christians of one form or another have in the past and are currently, rewriting US history. Please check the link I posted on in my first message. It will lead you to the real subject of this thread. If you wish to discuss that subject I'll be happy to continue with you. If not, I'm sure there is another thread about Religious Persecution, if not start one of your own.

It never ceases to amaze me that the people most angry with God and the Bible and Christianity are those most ignorant about all three.  I suppose that's not surprising since ignorance very often brings bigotry and ill-will along with it. 

First of all, before I address the various scriptural proofs you have brought up, a word about one's approach to the Bible as a whole.  Not everything in the Bible is equally applicable.  No Christian believes that.  If we did we would be sacrificing animals and circumcising our babies, and (indeed) dashing the children of unbelievers against rocks.

The reason we do not believe that all parts of the Bible apply to us today equally is because we view the Bible as a story that begins at creation and in some ways ends sometime before the end of the first century.  Without going into detail, much of the OT was written to the Jews who were God's chosen people at that time and while we can gain some information from it, after the coming of Jesus and the production of the NT it no longer applied to God's people.  So in some of my explanation below, when I suggest that some OT passage no longer applies, please don't take that as a convenient "non-literal" interpretation or cop-out or whatever.  It is consistent with the traditional Redemptive-Historical hermeneutic.  Much of the OT was written to the Jews for their time.  The NT was written to Christians and has more weight behind what it says because it is a new revelation specifically to the Church.

Now you said that according to the Bible, we Christians "are to hold the unbeliever with derision"

You use as your prooftext Ps. 59:8 which does not tell anyone to hold the unbeliever with derision.  It is describing what God is doing.  The NT says the love our enemies, to be kind to those who are persecuting us, etc. etc.  Basically we are to be nice to people who do not believe as we do.  We are not to deride them because we were once unbelievers ourselves.

Then you say the Bible tells us to "Turn families against one another, pitting brother against brother, parent against child."

Again, no, the verse you use has JESUS saying that HE came to do that, not that his followers were to do that.

Jeremiah 10:25 is a prayer to God for Him to pour out HIS f ury on the heathen, not a command to Christians to do so.  Keep in mind that Jeremiah prayed this after the Assyrians (or maybe the Babylonians) came in and destroyed Jerusalem the Holy City, so he was a little pissed off.

All the other verses about killing or destroying the heathen are from the OT, directed towards the Jews in that time period and are things that we are told not to do in the NT.  As I said, according to the NT we are to share our beliefs with everyone we can but we are not supposed to force them to accept it if they don't want to.  As I said, Christianity is not about forcing it down people's throats.

Next you said that we are to "force him/her to be your slave."  You use as your prooftext Ps. 2:8 which is so wrong its tragic.  One, nowhere is anyone given license to force anyone to be anyone's slave.  God is making a promise there.  Second, God is making a promise to the prophesied Messiah (i.e. Jesus) not to anybody who happens to be reading.  And third, the idea behind God giving Christ the heathen as an inheritance is that t hey would be subjects in his kingdom, i.e. Christians. 

This is supposed to be a rational response?

I believe my humor was more rational and logical than your previous post, "No Christian believes that...".

To say what you said was conceited, arrogant and ignorant.

To make naked assertions and call people names certainly isn't a rational response either.  Geez.  I thought you guys could do better than this.

First of all, if you really cared at all about truth you would actually become familiar with Christianity's actual stance on the Bible.  Secondly, I never said what you put in quotations as my statement, and I don't know of any traditional Christians who would say that.  Thirdly, Christians see no discrepancy between what Paul wrote and what Jesus said.  Perhaps you would like to point those out for me.  Paul is the traditional author of half the NT so obviously his writings have had a big impact on the Church.  But last time I checked we don't put Paul's words in red, so I don't see how we emphasize his teachings more than Jesus'.

Heya JCGadfly!  Hope you don't mind me butting in.

Of course.  The NT is, in the words of St Jerome, the OT revealed.  The OT was the promise, the new the fulfillment and realization of that promise.

Where does Paul diverge from the teachings of Jesus?

Yes, he wrote a good part of the New Testament.  As for Paul writing before the writing of the Gospels, well, you know where I stand on that issue, but for the sake of other readers who don't, lemme just say that the earliest witnesses of the Church (ie, the Church Fathers) simply don't support that assertion.

'Cause it just ain't so.  The Church was founded by Jesus Christ.  Paul was certainly one of the great forces behind the success of the early Church, though.

Nah, I ain't buying it.  Christians forming a "mystical body of Christ" is one of the recurring themes of Paul's letters.  See Eph 9:29-30, Col 2:19-20, and especially 1 Cor 12:12-27.  Paul realizes we are all part of God.

I think, while Paul gets a bit cranky from time to time, "shitty" is a bit strong.  Paul's emphatic, that's all.