Founders & the Bible
By The Tribune-Review
Published: Friday, March 22, 2013, 8:57 p.m.
This letter is in response to the letter by Bruce Braden ( “The Bible & violence,” March 2):
When checking the backgrounds of Thomas Paine and Ethan Allen, I found they both “followed in the tradition of early 18th-century British deism.” These men would have a bias in Bible interpretation.
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson wrote many articles on a wide variety of subjects. I found a quote from each that supports the Bible and God.
From Adams: “Suppose a nation in some distant region, should take the Bible for their only law Book, and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. Every member would be obliged in conscience to temperance and frugality and industry, to justice and kindness and charity towards his fellow men, and to Piety and Love, and reverence towards Almighty God. In this Commonwealth, no man would impair his health by gluttony, drunkenness or lust — no man would sacrifice his most precious time to cards, or any other trifling and mean amusement — no man would steal or lie or any way defraud his neighbour, but would live in peace and good will with all men — no man would blaspheme his maker or profane his worship, but a rational and manly, a sincere and unaffected piety and devotion, would reign in all hearts” (diary entry, Feb. 22, 1756).
From Jefferson: “And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Beneficial, irreplaceable
- Shredded Wheat & ‘Low T’
- Enslaving themselves
- Prison plan & the public’s say
- Ukraine & history
- Metcalfe wrong
- Funding priorities questioned
- Proven success