Harry S. Truman's Christmas Greeting



From time to time, it is helpful to look back at the manner in which the country formerly recognized and cherished our Christian roots. Of course, today it is difficult for any Christian in government to say anything that would seem to promote the true meaning of Christmas, but it wasn't that long ago that Presidents and others in government would freely recognize the birth of Christ without fearing organizations like the AHA or the Freedom from Religion Foundation arguing that it violates the Constitution.

One such occasion not so long ago, shortly after the United States Supreme Court stepped in and redefined the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Board of Education (1947) but before the implications of that decision became manifest, was Harry S. Truman's Christmas address in 1949. Bill Bennett reproduces a portion of the speech in a Christmas email I received today. The speech seems a far cry from the typical, non-specific holiday greetings we receive from Presidents today, and makes no bones about the meaning for the season. I share it here.
Once more I have come out to Independence to celebrate Christmas with my family. We are back among old friends and neighbors around our own fireside. . . . Since returning home, I have been reading again in our family Bible some of the passages which foretold this night. It was that grand old seer Isaiah who prophesied in the Old Testament the sublime event which found fulfillment almost 2,000 years ago. Just as Isaiah foresaw the coming of Christ, so another battler for the Lord, St. Paul, summed up the law and the prophets in a glorification of love which he exalts even above both faith and hope.

We miss the spirit of Christmas if we consider the Incarnation as an indistinct and doubtful, far-off event unrelated to our present problems. We miss the purport of Christ’s birth if we do not accept it as a living link which joins us together in spirit as children of the ever-living and true God. In love alone – the love of God and the love of man – will be found the solution of all the ills which afflict the world today. Slowly, sometimes painfully, but always with increasing purpose, emerges the great message of Christianity: only with wisdom comes joy, and with greatness comes love.

In the spirit of the Christ Child – as little children with joy in our hearts and peace in our souls – let us, as a nation, dedicate ourselves anew to the love of our fellowmen. In such a dedication we shall find the message of the Child of Bethlehem, the real meaning of Christmas.
And with those words of wisdom, I wish you all a very, very Merry Christmas.

Comments

Anonymous said…
I am curious what your motivation is here.

Are you wanting the US to be a Christian country? Why is that important to you?

Presumably you live as a Christian, and the state does not do anything to hinder that. There are no laws you have to keep that hinders you living as a Christian, for example.

My guess, then, is that you want a Christian country so you can force everyone else to live according to Christianity. That would be in keeping with Christianity (and other religions such as Islam) through the ages. Is that right?

Pix
BK said…
Your guess is wrong, per usual. I post it because I want to remind people that the present understanding of the Establishment Clause is not the historical understanding of the Establishment Clause. Our history shows that we were once much more open to acknowledging God's goodness and sovereignty than the lame, national-God acknowledgements of today. And yes, I do think that this country was better off when we regularly and openly acknowledged our Christian roots, and I would like to see the country return to that. That is a far cry from "forc(ing) everyone else to live according to Christianity."
Joe Hinman said…
Depends upon what you mean by "returning to Christian roots." I want stronger acknowledgement of God's reality, I think we can have that and still buttress the rights of atheists and other groups not to buy it.I want to avoid identifying any particular temporal power structure with the Gospel.

Joe Hinman said…
My guess, then, is that you want a Christian country so you can force everyone else to live according to Christianity. That would be in keeping with Christianity (and other religions such as Islam) through the ages. Is that right?

No it's not. Even though some have used Christianity to marshal forces and gain temporal power nothing in the faith itself mandates that we do that,

careful not to stereotype Bill,he's not a cliché
Anonymous said…
Bk: Your guess is wrong, per usual. I post it because I want to remind people that the present understanding of the Establishment Clause is not the historical understanding of the Establishment Clause. Our history shows that we were once much more open to acknowledging God's goodness and sovereignty than the lame, national-God acknowledgements of today.

Oh, right. I was assuming you were complaining about the current situation, which would imply you wanted to change it. Good to know that that is not the case.

BK: And yes, I do think that this country was better off when we regularly and openly acknowledged our Christian roots, and I would like to see the country return to that. That is a far cry from "forc(ing) everyone else to live according to Christianity."

Oh, so you do want to change it...

So in summary you want to change the US so it is a Christian country, but not change how anyone actually lives their lives? So change it, but not actually change it...

A big issue here is the First Commandment. It is the most important law in the Bible, and Jesus confirms that in the NT. And yet it is in direct contradiction to the basic human right of freedom of worship. How do you reconcile a Christian government, upholding the laws of the Bible, with the right of freedom of worship?

A second issue is priviledge. Should Christians be priviledged because they are Christians? Should their religion be considered more important than other religions? I am sure you will say yes, because it is the one true religion, but Muslims and Hindus are equally convinced their religions are the one true religion.

I guess this is why Christians like to cite the founding fathers and early presidents. If we make the assumption that they are the ultimate authority, then we can show Christianity should be priviledged above other religions. Kind of like saying that antibiotics are wrong because the founding fathers never used them.

Pix
Anonymous said…
If you take the early presidents as authorities, perhaps you agree with this statement by Lincoln:

... I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]-that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. ..

- Abraham Lincoln; Fourth Debate with Stephen Douglas, September 18, 1858

The point here is that society changes. It may well be that the early presidents thought the US should be Christian, but that does not mean they were right, any more than Lincolon's views on race should be taken as right.

If you have a case that the US would be better as a Christian country today, you would be better served by presenting that case. You will undoubtedly respond by saying I will just reject your argument out of hand - and may well be right - but if your argument is good, then I end up looking like the loser. If ths is the best you can contrive for why the US should return to its Christian roots, on the other hand...

Pix
Anonymous said…
Joe: No it's not. Even though some have used Christianity to marshal forces and gain temporal power nothing in the faith itself mandates that we do that,

careful not to stereotype Bill,he's not a cliché


Sorry, but right now he looks like that cliché to me. As you said, Christianity of itself does not require that it rule the nation, and to be frank, when it has done so, its treatment of people of other faiths has not been good.

But hopefully he will clarify what this returnm to Christian roots would actually entail, and what the benefits would be - for people of all beliefs.

Pix
Joe Hinman said…
The point here is that society changes. It may well be that the early presidents thought the US should be Christian, but that does not mean they were right, any more than Lincolon's views on race should be taken as right.

We have to accept that society changes over time, Truman is a lot closer to our own time and situation than Lincoln,

If you have a case that the US would be better as a Christian country today, you would be better served by presenting that case. You will undoubtedly respond by saying I will just reject your argument out of hand - and may well be right - but if your argument is good, then I end up looking like the loser. If ths is the best you can contrive for why the US should return to its Christian roots, on the other hand...

I said I want ore acknowledgement that the major share of our culture believe in God I said nothing about a Christian natio nor did Bk i don't think.
BK said…
Pix - "I was assuming you were complaining about the current situation, which would imply you wanted to change it. Good to know that that is not the case." ~ Well, I wasn't responding to your unspoken assumptions.

Pix: "So in summary you want to change the US so it is a Christian country, but not change how anyone actually lives their lives? So change it, but not actually change it..." ~ Much too detailed of a question to answer here. But your "all or nothing" approach which ignores degrees of change is another unwarranted assumption that you are making.

Pix: "A big issue here is the First Commandment. It is the most important law in the Bible, and Jesus confirms that in the NT. And yet it is in direct contradiction to the basic human right of freedom of worship. How do you reconcile a Christian government, upholding the laws of the Bible, with the right of freedom of worship?" ~ Answer: Enforce the First Amendment as intended, i.e., allow for freedom of worship. Not too difficult.

Pix: "Should Christians be priviledged because they are Christians? Should their religion be considered more important than other religions? I am sure you will say yes, because it is the one true religion, but Muslims and Hindus are equally convinced their religions are the one true religion." ~ Again, much too complex for a simple comment, but the short answer is that this country was founded on Christian values and a Christian worldview. It is certainly possible to recognize that while respecting other people's rights to live/worship as they choose.

Pix: "I guess this is why Christians like to cite the founding fathers and early presidents. If we make the assumption that they are the ultimate authority, then we can show Christianity should be priviledged above other religions. Kind of like saying that antibiotics are wrong because the founding fathers never used them." ~ Wow, that's a silly viewpoint. Talk about straw man arguments....

Oh, and on Lincoln - To the best of my knowledge, no one (including me) says that our U.S. history is filled with nothing but devout Christians. We can all pick out exceptions (e.g., Jefferson was primarily a deist, but a deist that was not like deists today.) I am referring to overall arch and worldview. There are always exceptions. But as for Lincoln, even though he voiced doubts about Christianity as he grew older, he was raised in a Christian home by a Christian mother and had a worldview formed in that environment. So, yes, his thoughts and actions are still growing out of a Christian environment.
Anonymous said…
BK: Much too detailed of a question to answer here. But your "all or nothing" approach which ignores degrees of change is another unwarranted assumption that you are making.

If you can state what degree of change you are advocating, we can discuss it. If you choose not to, well, I am afraid I will assume the worse.

I am not even sure what a degree of change would look like. Would a Christian nation uphold the First Commandment or not? Christianity certainly has a history of forced conversions, and really how can a nation consider itself Christian if it fails to uphold Christianity's First Commandment?

BK: Enforce the First Amendment as intended, i.e., allow for freedom of worship. Not too difficult.

So in what sense would it be a Christian nation if it does not uphold the First Commandment?

I would imagine the first amendment was intended to let Christians worship freely. I doubt the founding fathers gave a second thought for Hindus and Muslims, given their background, so it would be entirely reasonably for them to demand everyone worship the Christian God, but to be free to do that as they please.

Is that what you meant?

I suspect not, but your answers are sufficiently ambiguous that what you hope for is very hard to discern. Deliberately?

BK: Again, much too complex for a simple comment, but the short answer is that this country was founded on Christian values and a Christian worldview. It is certainly possible to recognize that while respecting other people's rights to live/worship as they choose.

Recognise it? Sure, as long as that does not change how the country is actually run...

BK: Wow, that's a silly viewpoint. Talk about straw man arguments....

So you are not citing Harry S. Truman as an authority. So what was the point of your post? Who cares what Harry S. Truman said if he is not an authority?

BK: Oh, and on Lincoln ....

The point about Lincoln was that he was adamant that black and white were two different races, that the white man was superior. Is this an example of the Christian roots you want to return to?

I expect not. I would guess you want to cherry-pick the bits you want.

However, the same argument can be used to justify racism: It is going back to the nation's Christian roots, it is what the early presidents believed. The point here is that something is not good just because you can quote an early president saying it.

Pix
im-skeptical said…
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said…
Christian roots? Yes, the nation was predominantly Christian then, as it remains today. The Father of the Constitution and author of the Bill of Rights was James Madison. And like Jefferson and other major players in the founding of the country, he was a deist. And the Constitution they produced is decidedly SECULAR. Of course, it didn't take long for Christians to try to subvert the secular nature of the government, by instituting prayer in Congress, for example. For the record, Madison was opposed to that.

But now people come along to say that the country was founded on Christian principles, and they refer to earlier leaders who insisted on publicly espousing their Christian beliefs from the halls of government, DESPITE the Constitution, which was non-Christian from the beginning. The thing they don't seem to get about freedom of religion is that when government favors or leans toward any one religion, it diminishes or encroaches on the freedom of all who don't share that one religion. The founding fathers were astute enough to understand this. Those who followed (including Truman) weren't.
BK said…
Pix, apparently you and I have a very different understanding of the purpose of comments. To me, comments are a place to respond with a thought or two in response to the article or post. That's what you initially did, and I responded. Now, you want me -- in the comments -- to spell out and defend my entire view of the First Amendment's protections for religion, and you want me to spell out and defend the relationship between the First Amendment and the First Commandment. And if I don't do so, you are going to "assume the worst."

Well, I don't view comments the same way. I have neither the time nor the energy to chase you down the rabbit hole and discuss topics in the comments section that were no part of the post -- especially when I don't believe anyone but you, I, Joe and im-skeptical are reading them -- and when I don't have any expectation that you are open to changing your mind. I wrote a post on a Christian blog, not a book that gave all of my thoughts and reasons for what I believe. Moreover, I am not going to author a book in the comments section.

I cannot stop you from assuming anything -- you seem to do it all the time regardless -- but if anyone else bothers to read this far down the comments they know (as do you) that whatever conclusion you reach is simply your decision to assume the worst and that it has no relationship to reality.
BK said…
im-skeptical, since most of the readership to the blog (except for you and Pix) are Christians familiar with the reasons to believe that the Founders wrote with a Christian worldview, why don't you share individual by individual (with appropriate attestation) the religious viewpoints of the 40 people who signed the Constitution as proof that they were all deists?
Joe Hinman said…
im-skeptical said...
Christian roots? Yes, the nation was predominantly Christian then, as it remains today. The Father of the Constitution and author of the Bill of Rights was James Madison. And like Jefferson and other major players in the founding of the country, he was a deist.

I'm pretty sure Madison was not a deist,


And the Constitution they produced is decidedly SECULAR. Of course, it didn't take long for Christians to try to subvert the secular nature of the government, by instituting prayer in Congress, for example. For the record, Madison was opposed to that.

that is so stupid your ignorance of history is appalling. First they had no concept of secular. Their original separation idea was about no advantage for a state religion like the C of E. the idea that Christians subversives were skulking about waiting to get hold of the government is sheer stupidity,

But now people come along to say that the country was founded on Christian principles, and they refer to earlier leaders who insisted on publicly espousing their Christian beliefs from the halls of government, DESPITE the Constitution, which was non-Christian from the beginning.

the constitutions was not non Christian It wasn't particularly christian but the basic assumption they all made was that they were in some way connected to Christian beliefs, Even the diets,


The thing they don't seem to get about freedom of religion is that when government favors or leans toward any one religion, it diminishes or encroaches on the freedom of all who don't share that one religion. The founding fathers were astute enough to understand this. Those who followed (including Truman) weren't.

yes that's true. That means we have to include everyone that means christians too, but an acknowledgement of God as real does not have to favor any particularity group,

The constitutional convention was a mix of Christian and deist and they all assumed the basics of Christian teaching such as the 10 commandments and sermon the mount,


12/26/2017 03:52:00 PM Delete
Joe Hinman said…
James Madison's faith

James Huton Library of Congress


quote
_______________

Madison, on the other hand, defies definition or description. Seeking evidence of his faith quickly leads to the conclusion that there is, in the words of the poet, no there there, that in the mature Madison's writings there is no trace, no clue as to his personal religious convictions. Educated by Presbyterian clergymen, Madison, as a student at Princeton (1769-1772), seems to have developed a "transient inclination" to enter the ministry. In a 1773 letter to a college friend he made the zealous proposal that the rising stars of his generation renounce their secular prospects and "publicly . . . declare their unsatisfactoriness by becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ." Two months later Madison renounced his spiritual prospects and began the study of law. The next year he entered the political arena, serving as a member of the Orange County Committee of Safety. Public service seems to have crowded out of his consciousness the previous imprints of faith. For the rest of his life there is no mention in his writings of Jesus Christ nor of any of the issues that might concern a practicing Christian. Late in retirement there are a few enigmatic references to religion, but nothing else. With Madison, unlike Jefferson or any of the other principal founding fathers with the possible exception of Washington, one peers into a void when trying to discern evidence of personal religious belief.

Scholars, nevertheless, have tried to construct from this unyielding evidence a religious identity for Madison. He is such a commanding figure in the founding period's controversies over religion's relation to government that a knowledge of his personal religious convictions is sought as a key to his public posture on church-state issues. The very paucity of evidence has permitted a latitude of interpretation in which writers have created Madison in the image of their own religious convictions. To Christian scholars Madison is a paragon of piety; to those of a more secular bent he is a deist. His major 19th century biographer, William C. Rives, a pillar of the church in Virginia, argued that on Christianity's "doctrinal points" Madison was a model of "orthodoxy and penetration." Madison's major 20th century biographer, Irving Brant, pronounced him a deist. Reacting to this ascription, a Presbyterian minister-scholar, James Smylie, asserted in 1966 that Madison was nothing less than "a lay theologian." Another 20th century biographer, Ralph Ketcham, seems, initially, to have subscribed to Rives's view, asserting in 1960 that Madison was a man of "humble faith," who had a "deep personal attachment to some general aspects of Christian belief." By 1971, however, Ketcham seems to have turned to Brant's view, asserting that even in his college days Madison was no "more than conventionally religious" and that he later became a deist. Two recent scholars, William Lee Miller and Edwin Gaustad, stress the mature Madison's indifference to issues of religious faith. Within the last two years, John Noonan, a Catholic intellectual and jurist, has pushed the pendulum back toward Reeves by insisting that Madison was "a pious Christian," a "true follower" of Jesus and that he was guided by a "faith . . . palpably alive, a faith stupendous in modern eyes, a faith that God in us speaks to us." He spoke, Noonan concluded, "as a believer in Christianity's special light," as one who "looks to the evangelization of the world."
______________
end quote


im-skeptical said…
BK, I acknowledged that most were Christians. But the Constitution is still secular.

Joe, after being raised as a Christian, Madison was a deist. His own biographer says so, and it is only Christian apologists that dispute it. But there is not a shred of evidence to the contrary. And you seem to have no idea what the word 'secular' means.
Joe Hinman said…
did you not read the quote I put up there? scholars and historians argue both ways and no one knows.
im-skeptical said…
Scholars recognize that he's a deist. Christian apologists like to say he was a Christian. But they have NO EVIDENCE.
im-skeptical said…
did you not read the quote I put up there?

- "Two months later Madison renounced his spiritual prospects"
- "For the rest of his life there is no mention in his writings of Jesus Christ nor of any of the issues that might concern a practicing Christian."
- "one peers into a void when trying to discern evidence of personal religious belief."
- "Madison's major 20th century biographer, Irving Brant, pronounced him a deist."
- "Ketcham seems to have turned to Brant's view, asserting that even in his college days Madison was no "more than conventionally religious" and that he later became a deist."


But it is only Christian apologists who think he was a Christian:
- "The very paucity of evidence has permitted a latitude of interpretation in which writers have created Madison in the image of their own religious convictions."
- "Presbyterian minister-scholar, James Smylie, asserted in 1966 that Madison was nothing less than "a lay theologian."
- "John Noonan, a Catholic intellectual and jurist, has pushed the pendulum back toward Reeves by insisting that Madison was "a pious Christian,""


BK said…
im-skeptical - Notice how far off topic this is when we are getting into the weeds of what James Madison, in particular, thought when I was posting about Truman and the fact that public pronouncements of religion were more common in the past. While I disagree soundly with your conclusions about Madison, I see no reason to delve into it further other than to note that the author that you are citing has a clear objective based upon language alone. He is pushing a particular understanding of Madison's life and beliefs. Consider the wording that you quote ... "Two months later Madison renounced his spiritual prospects...." Renounced? How about the more accurate "decided against going into the ministry and chose instead to go to law school"? There was no "renouncing" going on.

Show me the language from something that Madison himself wrote anywhere near that time that he had chosen to "renounce his spiritual prospects." You won't find it anywhere. He had studied under one of the most renowned pastors of the age, John Witherspoon, and was convicted of his religious beliefs enough to consider becoming a pastor.

He was a typical Christian of the age who was relatively quiet about his religious views until very late in life when he did write negatively about Christianity. But until that time, his actions reflected a quiet faith. The idea that he had"renounced" Christianity simply because he felt moved to follow a different career path is silly.
im-skeptical said…
BK,

I was repeating lines directly from the passage that Joe cited, supposedly to prove that Madison was not a deist. That passage does nothing of the sort, but it does give us good reason to think that he actually was a deist. This is actually the consensus of scholars.

As for going off topic, I made the comment that Christian politicians have been outspoken about their beliefs while in the halls of government, despite the secular nature of the constitution, and that the primary author of the first amendment was opposed to that - precisely because if violates one of the founding principles of the country. And he should know. I think this is more than relevant to your post.
Joe Hinman said…

I was repeating lines directly from the passage that Joe cited, supposedly to prove that Madison was not a deist. That passage does nothing of the sort, but it does give us good reason to think that he actually was a deist. This is actually the consensus of scholars.

No I was not using that to prove he was not a Deist, if you actually read the material,
you would know the author's point is that no one knows. Even though he gives reasons to thin he was, since his point is still that we don't know then obviously those reasons are not strong enough to prove it.my point is it's useless to argue bout it because we don't know.


As for going off topic, I made the comment that Christian politicians have been outspoken about their beliefs while in the halls of government, despite the secular nature of the constitution, and that the primary author of the first amendment was opposed to that - precisely because if violates one of the founding principles of the country. And he should know. I think this is more than relevant to your post.

totally miss my point they did not have a concept of Godless society or a state totally divorced from belief in God. They even based the bill of rights upon God's work in creation,
BK said…
im-skeptical, My apologies. I hadn't read the entire chain. If Joe cited this source as authority, I reject it for the same reasons that I stated in response to your having quoted from it. Three things then I'm done.

One, I don't know how you know what the "consensus of scholars" would be on this issue. Have you read the entire literature? I have read fairly extensively in this area and I can say that I don't know that there is a "consensus" one way or the other.

Two, even if there is a consensus of scholars, that means very little to me. At the time that Einstein developed his Theory of Relativity, the consensus of scholars did not view the universe correctly. In my opinion, the question of what is true is never answered by "the consensus of scholars."

Three, your conclusion that the Constitution is secular is true, but not in the way that you apparently think of it being. Madison was not opposed to politicians being outspoken about their beliefs -- at least I have never read any such thing by him in any of the writings I have seen. For example, one need only read his Thanksgiving Proclamation of March 4, 1815 to see that he, himself, was willing to be specific about the identity of the God to whom he was asking the nation to give thanks. In it, he states:

"Under His fostering care their habits, their sentiments, and their pursuits prepared them for a transition in due time to a state of independence and self-government. In the arduous struggle by which it was attained they were distinguished by multiplied tokens of His benign interposition. During the interval which succeeded He reared them into the strength and endowed them with the resources which have enabled them to assert their national rights and to enhance their national character in another arduous conflict, which is now so happily terminated by a peace and reconciliation with those who have been our enemies. And to the same Divine Author of Every Good and Perfect Gift we are indebted for all those privileges and advantages, religious as well as civil, which are so richly enjoyed in this favored land."

Who is the "Divine Author of Every Good and Perfect Gift"? Anyone who has read James 1:17 knows immediately of whom James Madison is referencing. Note that the language is not that of a deistic god who set the universe in motion and sat back to watch. He references "His [God's] fostering care." that He "prepared them," that He made a "benign interposition," and that "He reared them into the strength and endowed them with the resources." If that is the language of a deist, he was a very strange deist indeed.
Joe Hinman said…
typically neither of you pays any attention no to what I said. you are both ideologues. Skepie has no evidence as the consensus of scholars hes just assuming that atheists web sites tell him must the consensus of scholars, in his world can be religious scholars.

Skepie doesn't get the distinction between the concept of secular in the day eighth century) and now, BK does,so Bk is closer to winning the point.

Learn to live with the ambiguity--both of you.
BK said…
So, because your source is clearly biased, I am an ideologue. LOL. You know, it's funny. When I disagree with you on something you know a lot about, you claim that I don't respect your studies. Now, in an area where I have a whole lot more knowledge than you, you feel free to dismiss what I am saying as the statements of an ideologue. You figure it out.
im-skeptical said…
Skepie has no evidence as the consensus of scholars
- Joe, you didn't even read your own source. I do read, and not just stuff that agrees with my beliefs. The consensus is that he was a deist.


Skepie doesn't get the distinction between the concept of secular in the day eighth century)
- Joe, I know what the word means. You evidently don't. And the concept of a secular state hasn't changed between then and now. I was not talking about a "Godless society or a state totally divorced from belief in God". That's just your own gross misunderstanding of reality, not mine.
BK said…
im-skeptical, please show me the source of your comment that the consensus is that he was a deist. I really don't know where you get that from.
im-skeptical said…
Perhaps the word 'consensus' is too strong. I understand that that there is ongoing debate. However, I also understand that it is only Christian apologists who claim he was a Christian in his later years, and that is despite a lack of evidence to support that claim. Serious biographers who have researches his life and his writings disagree. That includes Ketcham, who initially claimed Madison was a Christian, but eventually had to agree that he was a deist.

As for the Thanksgiving proclamation you cited, he was responding to a mandate from congress. He was still opposed to such statements being issued from within the government.
BK said…
im-skeptical, I don't know what to say. You just come out with more and more facts that I don't see supported anywhere. Oh well, guess this is back to the old adage that you can't make anyone believe what they don't want to believe.
im-skeptical said…
Unsupported? Did you read the entire proclamation? have you read about his position on such things? He later stated that such proclamations are unconstitutional.

Can you show me a non-Christian who thinks that Madison was a Cristian?

Popular posts from this blog

Where did Jesus say "It is better to give than receive?"

Martin Luther King, Jr., Jesus, Jonah and U2’s Pride in the Name of Love

How Many Children in Bethlehem Did Herod Kill?

On the Significance of Simon of Cyrene, Father of Alexander and Rufus

Dr. John Lennox: Video - Christmas for Doubters

William Lane Craig on "If Mind is Reducible to Brain Function, Why Trust Thought?"

Responding to the “Crimes of Christianity”; The Inquisition

The Meaning of the Manger

Is Science one Gene away From Defeating Religion?