Interesting. I have been reading some of the Federalist Papers and other pre-revolutionary articles. In light of the Iran/Israel showdown, it is quite interesting to find out about the influence that Judaism had on John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and some of the other founding fathers.

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Op-EdContri....

http://www.jewishpathways.com/jewish-his....

So popular was the Hebrew language in the late 17th and early 18th centuries that Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Brown, Princeton, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Pennsylvania taught courses in Hebrew - all the more remarkable because no university in England at the time offered such - and students had the option of delivering commencement speeches in Hebrew, Latin or Greek.3

Many of the Founding Fathers of America were products of these universities - for example, Thomas Jefferson attended William and Mary, James Madison - Princeton, Alexander Hamilton - King's College. Thus, we can be sure that a majority of these political leaders were not only well acquainted with the contents of the Bible, but also had some working knowledge of Hebrew. Notes Abraham Katsch in The Biblical Heritage of American Democracy:

At the time of the American Revolution, the interest in the knowledge of Hebrew was so widespread as to allow the circulation of the story that "certain members of Congress proposed that the use of English be formally prohibited in the United States, and Hebrew substituted for it."4


Note: I realize that by raising this topic I will probably attract some anti-Semitic types. This is not my intent. My intent is to show how Judaism has influenced the founding of the United States. If anyone has comments about that those are welcome. Thanks

This influence emerged during the Protestant reformation in northern Europe, when people learned to read the bible rather than relying on dogma and ceremony in the Catholic Church. It's not a coincidence that the Reformation and the invention of the printing press happened around the same time.

A year ago, I was in a church in Amsterdam called Oude Kerk that had been ransacked by 16th century protestant Iconoclasts so that all that was left of the Catholic accoutrements was the pulpit and pews. When you walked across the church, you were walking on grave markers, as all the wealthy Protestant parishoners for the next couple centuries were buried under the floor. A frequent marking on the graves was the star Of David.

I don't think anyone with a hint of historical knowledge could argue that the Judeo-Christian ethos had a large influence in the formation of the nation.

But it also appears that the fundamental premise found in Judeo-Christian thought at a "mainstream" level -- this is pronounced as "the path" to God, but it is not valid to force others to follow it -- was ensconced as well through, among other things, the First Amendment.

Quote:

But it also appears that the fundamental premise found in Judeo-Christian thought at a "mainstream" level -- this is pronounced as "the path" to God, but it is not valid to force others to follow it -- was ensconced as well through, among other things, the First Amendment.

Yes sir.

Many Christians (I am not one of them) make claims that go far beyond "the Founders were influenced by Judeo-Christian thought," which is an accurate statement but a more accurate one would probably be that they were influenced by the values of the Enlightenment, which was the predominant school of thought at the time. When people make the claim that "the country was founded on the Bible" or "the country was founded on Christianity" they go way over the line.

The country was founded on Common Sense. And, for whatever reason, people who for generations existed in a "Christian" society--whether they had been beaten over the head with corrupted Christianity; or genuinely nourished by the true principles of it--were somehow compelled and enabled to establish one helluva nice place to live one's life.
That's about all that can be said about America and Christianity (and more importantly, this cannot be said about America and any other religion).

Hebrew was regarded as one of the "classical languages", and Protestants in particular - given the emphasis on Scripture in their beliefs - attached a high importance to studying the Bible in the original tongues. St Jerome in the C4-5 had employed Jewish scholars to advise him on his translation of the Bible into Latin, but that was not common practice thereafter until the Reformation.

I don't think that a knowledge of Hebrew can be taken as an interest in Judaism as such, except insofar as an understanding of its beliefs and practices shed light on the origins of Christianity.

Jefferson in particular was well enough aquainted with classical languages that he wrote his own reinterpretation of the new testament. All about the life and morals of Jesus. Not so much about authoritarian dogma and supernatural mumbo-jumbo more properly attributed to Paul & company.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_b....

Today's fundies would do their best to crucify him for this, of course. Imagine the endless nattering about slicing excerpts out of a bible...

The atheist in me says "Meh". (FWIW, I'm mainly an indifferent agnostic, but go full-metal atheist when cranky, or just for the fun of it sometimes...)

Read Jefferson's Statue of Virginia for Relgious Freedom:
The last two sentences are freaking awesome!

Quote:

An Act for establishing religious Freedom.
Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry,

That therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence, by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages, to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right,

That it tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

That though indeed, these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

That it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

Tnd finally, that Truth is great, and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

Be it enacted by 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 no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities. And though we well know that 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 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.[3]
[/QOUTE]

Jefferson was so proud of this act that he credits himself on his tombstone with being the author of only 2 documents: The Declaration of Indepence and this Statute

I would encourage the interested to read a bit about William Penn. Penn pushed for ecumenicism among Christians and religious tolerance in law and civil administration. It is no wonder that Philadelphia was an epicenter of free thinking. I think we all owe Penn a bit of gratitude, but you seldom hear his virtues extolled or read his quotes.

The irony, I think, with Penn is that his ideas were completely revolutionary and considered to be nearly heretical to the English crown / Church of England (and to the Catholics in that day too). The Quaker ideals of equality were so different from the period's Christian teachings that the Quakers were openly persecuted as traitors to "King and God."

Yet, the Frame of Government he wrote was later used as the basis for the US Constitution and Christian sects who openly persecuted and ridiculed Penn and the Quakers for "blasphemy" are very quick to spring forward and declare that the US is a 'Christian' nation.

There's a lot of influence as well from the Roman Republic (pre-Caesars), and pre-Roman Celtic Common Law (recodified by King Alfred the Great who binned the last dregs of tyrannical Imperial Roman Law in the process).

King John had the attempt to reimpose tyrannical Imperial Roman Law (after Justinian's Precepts were rediscovered at Amalfi in the 10th Century) halted at the point of many swords, which gave us the peace treaty of Magna Carta.

The next major attempt to reimpose tyrannical Imperial Roman Law was blocked by King Henry VIII (there were other attempts along the way), and the resulting unavoidable break with Rome (which was sweet FA to do with divorcing wives).

The struggle continued with Henry's heirs, and ended up with Elizabeth having to face the might of the Spanish Armada massed against her.

It was a part of our Civil War too, as barking mad tyrants just love this whole 'Divine Right of Kings' lie, which traps them and their people into slavery.

Again the struggle continued, with James II continuing with the old tricks, and finally being run off the battlefield in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which gave us our Bill of Rights, and America, its first Bill of Rights.

In 1765 Sir William Blackstone published his 'Commentaries on the Laws of England' which is the Constitutional and Legal handbook.

99.99% of it is outstanding, but there were a couple of deliberately included mistakes (and as an aside, future editions have included a few extra deliberate mistakes too). I am fairly sure that the Founding Father's would have recognised those deliberate mistakes immediately (it is hard not to), and clearly saw the writing on the wall (all too soon confirmed after publication).

That's not to disparage much wider experience along the way of the attempts to maintain or restore freedom from the attempted reimposition of tyrannical Imperial Roman Law (the Inquisition, etc), but a direct track back through some of the things the Founding Father's would have clear knowledge and understanding of.

For example it wasn't just Scotland that successfully fought Imperial Rome, resulting in Hadrian's Wall being built (the Scots kicked their arses).

We in Wales did too (and we had a similar structure built to help keep the bastards safe from us, which was restored by Offa). We also successfully fought off the Normans as well (another attempt at this bull****).

Today the fight continues (the bastards never learn, it's utter self destruction they so desperately want to impose on themselves, it has never worked yet, and it never will), and over here, it's embodied in the EU (which wasn't started with the Treaty of Rome by accident).

If you doubt that, just read that damnable document, the proposed EU Constitution, and there it is again in its full horror.

You are fighting the same thing too (the destruction of the competing Constitutions and Rule of Law, that commit the grave sin of actually working, and protecting people from the destructive processes of barking mad tyrants).

PS. All down the line, this has had nothing whatsoever to do with fighting against Christianity, and for perspective in this, Britain was already Christian long before the first Roman 'Bishop' landed here, the man who invented the 'barbarian Anglo Saxons' that he converted to 'the Faith'.

There was never an Anglo Saxon invasion of Britain, and virtually no Anglo Saxon DNA has been found here. It was a made up history for 'divide and rule' purposes, and to make a missionary look good in Rome for propaganda purposes.

Yes that's right, England is as Celtic and Ancient Brit as the rest of us here. It's rather amusing to watch that realisation sink in with an 'Anglo Saxon' Englishman. *grins*

PPS. There was indeed a major influx of population to the East coast of Britain, after the fall of Rome. But that influx didn't come from the Continent, and it wasn't of 'Anglo Saxons'. It came from the WEST coast of Britain to take part in the booming Continental trade that sprang up.

The Old Testament was writings were in Hebrew. The New Testament writings were in Greek. That is why Hebrew and Greek are parts of the curriculum at schools that educate the Protestant clergy. All of the above schools trained clergy with the probable exception of Johns Hopkins which was not founded until the late 19th century.

Quote:

If you doubt that, just read that damnable document, the proposed EU Constitution, and there it is again in its full horror.

At least the EU has a constitution, guaranteeing at least some rights.

The UK has none.

The UK "subjects" (not citizens) have no rights that cannot be voted away by Parliament in the morning.

Just reread what I wrote a week ago. Please give my grammatical atrocity (again).

but the UK does have the EU Human Rights Convention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Co....

which is basically a bill of rights for the UK now? i mean, it is part of the treaty of course, and can be taken away.

still, it comes back to the executive party and their ability to 'move the goal posts'.