Religious beliefs of the founding fathers

I asked Google for a review of the religious beliefs of the founding fathers. This is what Google said:

The religious beliefs of the American Founding Fathers were diverse, ranging from orthodox Christianity to deism, though many key figures adhered to "theistic rationalism"—a hybrid of rationalism and Protestantism. They generally believed in a creator God and the importance of religion for public morality but rejected state-compelled worship. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] 

Here is a review of the religious beliefs of prominent Founding Fathers: 

• Thomas Jefferson: A proponent of the separation of church and state, Jefferson was likely a "Christian Deist" or a theistic rationalist. He admired Jesus's moral teachings but rejected his divinity and the Trinity, even creating his own edited version of the Bible. 
• George Washington: Often seen as a conventional Christian, his private actions suggest he was likely a "Christian Deist". He rarely took communion, spoke of "Providence" rather than Jesus, and was described by his rector as a deist. 
• John Adams: A deeply religious man, but one who rejected traditional orthodox Christianity for Unitarianism, which emphasizes rational belief over doctrines like the Trinity. 
• Benjamin Franklin: Known to have held deistic views, he believed in a creator God, the immortality of the soul, and that God warranted worship, but was skeptical of organized religious doctrine. 
• James Madison: Deeply influenced by Enlightenment rationalism and Christianity, he was a strong advocate for religious liberty and separation of church and state. 
• Thomas Paine: A staunch deist who openly rejected the divinity of Jesus and the authenticity of the Bible, making him one of the most radical religious thinkers among the group. 
• Patrick Henry: A strong proponent of evangelical Christianity, he was known for his piety and for distributing religious tracts, making him an outlier from the deistic leanings of many others. 
• Samuel Adams: A strict Calvinist with intense, orthodox Christian beliefs. 
• John Jay: A strong supporter of the church, serving as president of the American Bible Society, holding traditional orthodox views. [5, 6, 7, 8, 9] 

Common Threads

• Theistic Rationalism: Scholar Gregg Frazer argues that key founders were neither wholly Christian nor strictly deist, but "theistic rationalists" who used reason to determine which Christian doctrines to accept. 
• Pro-Religion/Anti-Establishment: While many were not orthodox, they generally believed that a functioning republic required a moral, religious populace. 
• Providence: Instead of a personal God of salvation, many used terms like "Providence" or "Creator" to describe a God who played a role in the nation’s founding. [1, 3, 4, 7, 10] 

AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0HPysnDLO8

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5J4S5LPeWM

[3] https://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding

[4] https://kirkcenter.org/reviews/founders-faith-none-of-the-above/

[5] https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1463&context=facpubs

[6] https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2017/11/faith-founders-role-religion-americas-founding-mark-david-hall.html

[7] https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

[8] https://www.bobcornwall.com/2007/08/faiths-of-founding-fathers-review.html

[9] https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/14jydov/what_the_founding_fathers_thought_of_christianity/

[10] https://theimaginativeconservative.org/2012/10/founders-fathers-faith-none-of-above.html

I may add to this later. Some of these books look interesting.

Here’s a review of a book on the topic

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1463&context=facpubs#:~:text=After%20providing%20a%20survey%20of,Madison%2C%20Adams%2C%20and%20Monroe.&text=context%20and%20an%20appropriate%20appreciation,more%20than%20two%20centuries%20ago.

meme copied from X -- to MTG

An Open Letter to Marjorie Taylor Greene

From, Alyssa Milano November 17, 2025:

“Congresswoman Greene,

Let’s skip the pleasantries. They were never your thing anyway.

So…you’ve suddenly discovered that Donald Trump, the man you treated like a messiah, is not loyal and that the MAGA movement is not safe, not sane, and certainly not rooted in anything constitutional. And you’re shocked that he’s attacking you, endangering you, calling you a traitor. As if you didn’t know he had it in him. Puh-lease.

Here’s the part you don’t get to skip:

You helped create this monster. You fed it. You protected it. You celebrated it. And now that it’s finally turning on you, you want sympathy? Understanding? A moment of national concern?

No. Absolutely not. NOPE.

You don’t get to unleash political poison into the bloodstream of American politics and then act surprised when it reaches your own veins. You don’t get to cheer on Trump while he smears, threatens, and dehumanizes everyone in his way, and then clutch your fake pearls when he finally does it to you. You don’t get to empower a movement built on conspiracy, cruelty, and violence, and then cry foul when you become its latest target.

Let’s be honest, you calling for the release of the Epstein Files, isn’t courage. It’s fear. You don’t suddenly care about truth or justice. And you definitely don’t care about the victims. You are calling for the release of the files because you’re afraid of what unchecked power looks like when it’s no longer aimed at your enemies. The Epstein case is a perfect cultural lightning-rod and your supporters love that shit.

You saw the polls and are reacting accordingly.

Jump off the sinking MAGA ship, am I right, MTG?

Now you’re talking about accountability and transparency. Ha! Where was that energy on January 6th? Where was your outrage when Trump incited a mob to storm the Capitol?

When they hunted Democratic lawmakers through hallways? When they called for the hanging of the Vice President? When police officers were beaten, crushed, and traumatized doing their jobs?

Where was your moral clarity then, MTG?

Where was your voice when Democratic governors were receiving kidnapping threats?When election workers were doxxed and terrorized? When a man broke into Nancy Pelosi’s home with a hammer and nearly killed her husband? When threats against Democrats, judges, school boards, and public servants skyrocketed?

You said nothing.

And this isn’t new behavior. You chased a Parkland school-shooting survivor, David Hogg, down a Washington sidewalk, taunting him and calling him a “coward.”

You screamed through President Biden’s State of the Union address like you were the most unprofessional person to ever be elected into office.

You voted against the Frederick Douglass Human Trafficking Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act, (one of only twenty members of Congress to oppose a bipartisan bill designed to help trafficking victims).

You amplified QAnon conspiracies.

You suggested school shootings were staged.

And while Democrats were being targeted, when a militia plotted to kidnap Governor Gretchen Whitmer, and when Governor Josh Shapiro’s home was set on fire in an arson attack with his family inside, you offered no outrage, no sympathy, no defense of democracy.

I could go on. But I think you get the picture,

Congresswomen. I’m not buying it.

If you want redemption. If you want to step into the light, there is only one door:

Public, unequivocal accountability.

Not the performative kind with hair and make-up.

Not the “Trump hurt my feelings” kind. Not the victimhood you’ve perfected. Real accountability means going fully public with everything you know, every lie, every scheme, every threat, every abuse of power you witnessed, tolerated, or assisted. If you want redemption, start with the truth. All of it.

Until then, this isn’t a moral awakening. It’s simply the consequences of your own choices arriving right on schedule.

Sincerely,

Alyssa Milano” 

Elves in Detroit sequel

 If anyone actually read the 4th book in the Elves in Detroit series, you will know that that book just didn't turn out the way it was supposed to.  I intended for Laurielle to marry Smash, but that didn't happen at all -- and I still don't know what the ending will be for the story -- if there is one.  When I published it, I said it was a draft.

But I had this idea that I would write a short story sequel about one character -- one goblin -- and maybe try to get it on some website where they have free short stories and maybe that website would get my name better known.  

This short story is going incredibly slowly. Tho I knew the ending all along, I just couldn't get there.  I'm not sure I still have, tho I'm getting closer.

I've been using AI -- bing image creator and Grok -- to generate some pictures of goblins.  Bing image creator was super frustrating as it kept cutting off the top of the goblin's head and her feet.  Grok was somewhat better in that respect.  The images from Grok looked more realistic, while the ones from Bing image creator looked cartoonish.  Anyway, here are some images -- tho I haven't one hundred percent decided which one I want.

These are the ones from Bing image creator

I did sort of want her to look like a stick figure,

but not like she was starving.  Not sure how that 

would pan out with the right drawing.

Leaning towards this one

Altho it's got more flesh than I imagine her having

These are the ones from Grok

Leaning towards this one:

This was the description that I eventually developed for this character

A standing female goblin. She is wearing a ragged one shoulder sleeveless dress. She is unnaturally scrawny, with little flesh between her skin and her bones — almost like a stick figure. She has reddish brown hair that sticks straight out of her head. Her enormous nose has wide nostrils so that the nasal base extends across half the width of her face. The nasal ridge is very straight, not aquiline, so that the perpetual snarl of her upper lip and her sinister, pointed teeth are clearly visible. Her eyes are red. Her ears are enormous and bat like. Her hands and feet are oversized. The top of her head and the ground under her feet are clearly visible. Her skin is very pale white, but dirty. Her fingers and toes have large steel claws sprouting naturally from her flesh. Her head is large in proportion to the rest of her body.  There are blood stains on her face, hands, and dress. 

None of the results were exactly what I wanted.  The one that I decided I liked best was from Bing image creator, but lacked feet and top of head.  I have been editing this image on Gimp with the following result:

I added feet & top of head from other goblin images and changed the color scheme.  I also enlarged her head.  I'm trying to decide about sinister/menacing, which a goblin is supposed to be, and nonplussed, which this character actually is.  Making the image darker and yellower seems to make her more menacing, I think.  The original image is tagged above, under the Bing image creator list.

I really wanted her to have a straight nose.  I'm mindful of the criticisms that goblin images are often designed to look Jewish.  Still I chose one who had an aquiline nose.  If you read even Book 4 of the Elves in Detroit series, you may note that the chief of a horde gets a much larger nose as part of becoming chief -- magically.

Substack?

 I've had this blog for a long time.  I've really enjoyed writing it.

However, it has not gotten a lot of attention.  

A professional writing expert told me that substack is better, so I'm starting one on substack.  I hope this is the correct link:

https://annalissemayer.substack.com

Of course, I'm grateful for those people who are reading this blog.  I am not abandoning it.  Hopefully, this will just be an expansion.

I am also changing my avi.  Previously, I was using princess Merida, my Disney princess.  I found her inspiring.  However, I'm mindful that she is copyrighted, so I got this new one from Bing image creator.

I hope you like her

You'll notice that I just posted a blog about autism, Tylenol, and the Internet. 

https://substack.com/@annalissemayer/note/p-174503721?r=6jtsat&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web

or maybe this link is better?

https://substack.com/home/post/p-174503721

 Normally, I would have put that blog here.  I wonder if I should put it both places.  I'm new at this.  

Hmm.  I'm seeing that even tho I added an avi on substack it doesn't seem to be showing up on this post, which was posted before I got an avi.  That wouldn't happen on blogger.  I wonder if that's a bug or a feature, or whether I need to refresh my screen.

I also wrote a sort of stumbling introduction.  I wonder if these are editable.

https://annalissemayer.substack.com/p/introduction

Ok, yes, I was able to edit it and correct a couple of things.  Baby steps.

historical introduction of franklin in peanuts

 I saw this on FB.  I hope I'm not going to offend Arthur Bass, whoever he may be, by posting this.  I tried to ask Google to find the orginal post, but nothing was forthcoming.  If you are the copyright owner and want me to take this down, just comment.

Arthur Bass On this day, July 31st in 1968, a young, black man was reading the newspaper when he saw something that he had never seen before. With tears in his eyes, he started running and screaming throughout the house, calling for his mom. He would show his mom, and, she would gasp, seeing something she thought she would never see in her lifetime. Throughout the nation, there were similar reactions. 

What they saw was Franklin Armstrong's first appearance on the iconic comic strip "Peanuts." Franklin would be 56 years old this year. 

Franklin was "born" after a school teacher, Harriet Glickman, had written a letter to creator Charles M. Schulz after Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was shot to death outside his Memphis hotel room.  

Glickman, who had kids of her own and having worked with kids, was especially aware of the power of comics among the young. “And my feeling at the time was that I realized that black kids and white kids never saw themselves [depicted] together in the classroom,” she would say.  

She would write, “Since the death of Martin Luther King, 'I’ve been asking myself what I can do to help change those conditions in our society which led to the assassination and which contribute to the vast sea of misunderstanding, hate, fear and violence.'” 

Glickman asked Schulz if he could consider adding a black character to his popular comic strip, which she hoped would bring the country together and show people of color that they are not excluded from American society. She had written to others as well, but the others feared it was too soon, that it may be costly to their careers, that the syndicate would drop them if they dared do something like that. 

Charles Schulz did not have to respond to her letter, he could have just completely ignored it, and everyone would have forgotten about it. But, Schulz did take the time to respond, saying he was intrigued with the idea, but wasn't sure whether it would be right, coming from him, he didn't want to make matters worse, he felt that it may sound condescending to people of color. 

Glickman did not give up, and continued communicating with Schulz, with Schulz surprisingly responding each time. She would even have black friends write to Schulz and explain to him what it would mean to them and gave him some suggestions on how to introduce such a character without offending anyone. This conversation would continue until one day, Schulz would tell Glickman to check her newspaper on July 31, 1968. 

On that date, the cartoon, as created by Schulz, shows Charlie Brown meeting a new character, named Franklin. Other than his color, Franklin was just an ordinary kid who befriends and helps Charlie Brown. Franklin also mentions that his father was "over at Vietnam." At the end of the series, which lasted three strips, Charlie invites Franklin to spend the night one day so they can continue their friendship. 

There was no big announcement, there was no big deal, it was just a natural conversation between two kids, whose obvious differences did not matter to them. And, the fact that Franklin's father was fighting for this country was also a very strong statement by Schulz. 

Although Schulz never made a big deal over the inclusion of Franklin, there were many fans, especially in the South, who were very upset by it and that made national news. One Southern editor even said, “I don’t mind you having a black character, but please don’t show them in school together.” 

It would eventually lead to a conversation between Schulz and the president of the comic's distribution company, who was concerned about the introduction of Franklin and how it might affect Schulz' popularity. Many newspapers during that time had threatened to cut the strip. 

Schulz' response: "I remember telling Larry at the time about Franklin -- he wanted me to change it, and we talked about it for a long while on the phone, and I finally sighed and said, "Well, Larry, let's put it this way: Either you print it just the way I draw it or I quit. How's that?" 

Eventually, Franklin became a regular character in the comic strips, and, despite complaints, Franklin would be shown sitting in front of Peppermint Patty at school and playing center field on her baseball team.  

More recently, Franklin is brought up on social media around Thanksgiving time, when the animated 1973 special "A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving" appears. Some people have blamed Schulz for showing Franklin sitting alone at the Thanksgiving table, while the other characters sit across him. But, Schulz did not have the same control over the animated cartoon on a television network that he did on his own comic strip in the newspapers. But, he did have control over his own comic strip, and, he courageously decided to make a statement because of one brave school teacher who decided to ask a simple question. 

Glickman would explain later that her parents were "concerned about others, and the values that they instilled in us about caring for and appreciating everyone of all colors and backgrounds — this is what we knew when we were growing up, that you cared about other people . . . And so, during the years, we were very aware of the issues of racism and civil rights in this country [when] black people had to sit at the back of the bus, black people couldn’t sit in the same seats in the restaurants that you could sit . . . Every day I would see, or read, about black children trying to get into school and seeing crowds of white people standing around spitting at them or yelling at them . . . and the beatings and the dogs and the hosings and the courage of so many people in that time." 

Because of Glickman, because of Schulz, people around the world were introduced to a little boy named Franklin.

 

A mathematical definition of God

Reformulation 8/18/2022

For me, the word “God” is a variable, as in mathematics or computer science, that represents an unknown – the unknown prime mover. That unknown might be a single thing, or a set of things. The set might be small or very large.

As to the nature of that unknown, that is a theological question. Is God like what is described in the Bible? Does God have consciousness? Does God have intent? Does God care about me personally? Does God actively intervene in a creative, as opposed to mechanistic, way in the events of the world? When I have a mystical experience -- conscious contact, per step 11 -- is that a contact with an external God, or just an artifact of my neurology?

These theological questions, and their answers, do not form part of my definition of “God." I do not feel compelled to adopt the definitions of self appointed experts. I do not see how the terms “exist" or “don’t exist" relate to my definition as formulated.

***************

I put this on my AT&T website in 2001, but that website was taken down

A MATHEMATICAL DEFINITION OF GOD

11/11/01

This definition will require the reader to understand: What is a variable?  What is a mathematical definition?  What is a set?  Also, I will use the symbol “≡”  to mean “is defined as.”  If you did not do much math, particularly no college math, you probably won’t understand the following discussion.

For each person there is a list of questions, unanswerable questions, God-defining questions.  For each person, this list will be different.  Some examples of these questions follow. 

X­₁≡ Why are we here?

X₂≡ Why is there gravity?

X₃≡ Why is it wrong to kill another person in cold blood?

•

•

•

•

and so forth.  In this list, each question is assigned a variable which represents the answer to the question.

I then define God as follows:

GOD ≡ {X₁, X₂, X₃, …}

I believe that under this definition no one can say that GOD does not exist, nor that GOD is more than one thing.

There may be other questions, e.g.

©      Does GOD have consciousness?  

©      Is GOD a being?  (To which one might reply, “What is a being[1]?”) 

©      Does GOD care about us? 

©      Does GOD have gender? 

©      Does it make sense to define subsets of GOD relating to particular sub-characteristics, e.g. Shiva, Venus, etc.? 

These are interesting questions, which merit much discussion; however, I do not propose any answers to those questions.  I only put forth this basic definition, so that we may stop arguing about whether GOD exists and rather discuss what we think GOD is like, which I find much more interesting.

------

reformulation 250707 -- similar to 2022

Thus the word "God" is a variable, like the letter X in algebra.  It represents an unknown: an unknown prime mover, an unknown basic nature of the universe, an unknown source of moral law; an unknown cause of that sense of presence that I feel.

I personally believe that we do not have the ability to understand God.  Different people have different perceptions -- but no perception, no description is complete.  I see with reference to this the traditional Jewish belief that the name of God is unpronounceable, not only forbidden, but also impossible.  The Tao Te Ching says that the Tao which can be named is not the true Tao.

I've read that research on the differences between atheists and believers.  Atheists have been found to be neurologically different from  believers.  I suppose that they must not have that impression of the presence of the divine that I feel.

---

[1] It is interesting that in one Supreme Court case, the Court defined religion as belief in a Supreme Being, but that really begs the question.  What does one mean by a “being?”

comments about non-theism in program

Some comments I wrote about a draft pamphlet about non-theist recovery in SLAA

First I referred to my non-theist affirmations

 https://annalisse-mayer.blogspot.com/2023/09/proposed-secular-affirmations-for-non.html

Then I sent these remarks:

SLAA was not my first program.  OA was.

After joining OA, I had some dramatic emotional mystical experiences.  I had dim visions, not exactly like hallucinations, but transformative images in my mind, which I felt came from HP. 

I also had peculiar sensations in my brain. I don’t know if you’ve ever had the experience of a limb falling asleep.  Then when sensation comes back, for me, it often feels like fluid flowing into the limb.  I had a sensation like that in my brain.  A feeling of fluid flowing — circulation returning.

Something like this happened to Bill W, the founder of AA.  He saw a flash of light.  He felt wind blowing on his face.

I have been interested in the research on ketamine, which induces hallucinations — something a bit like the mystical experiences I had after joining OA.  

I have been abstinent in OA for 20 years.  I absolutely believe that these mystical experiences I had changed my brain, neurologically, and allowed me to become & stay abstinent.  

There has been some research on what happens in the brain during ketamine hallucinations — also what happens in the brain during prayer and meditation.  

Ketamine researchers seem to feel that the drug actually somehow erases patterns in the brain and rearranges things into new patterns. https://360info.org/ketamine-helps-change-thinking-patterns-in-people-with-treatment-resistant-depression/

Dr Jung in the AA Big Book p. 27 

“Here and there, once in a while, alcoholics have had what are called vital spiritual experiences.

To me these occurrences are phenomena. They appear to be in the nature of huge emotional displacements and rearrangements. Ideas, emotions, and attitudes which were once the guiding forces of the lives of these men are suddenly cast to one side, and a completely new set of conceptions and motives begin to dominate them.”

This is very much the way researchers describe the effect of ketamine on the brain. 

I have not had such dramatic experiences in SLAA as I had in OA, so my recovery hasn’t been as good, I feel.  Also, my OA program was directed to stopping something — compulsive Overeating—while my SLAA program, directed at sexual & emotional anorexia, is more oriented towards starting something.  But also I have huge step 2 problems in SLAA.  I wonder if my desire for a relationship is selfish, whether it’s wrong to pray for it.  I wonder if HP maybe doesn’t want me to have a relationship.  Maybe I should surrender to that.

Here is a blog I wrote, under a different pseudonym, in 2012 about some of the research I was reading about then and how it related to my recovery. https://annalisse-mayer.blogspot.com/2012/07/musings-on-neurology-of-12-step.html

In any case, tho, with respect to the spiritual experiences I have had, I have no idea whether they come from an external God, or whether they are just an interesting neurological phenomena.  I have read that atheists do tend to have different neurology from religionists, so they possibly cannot have mystical experiences.

Yet, I feel that an explanation of program that does not mention this type of experience is not giving the whole picture.  I have spoken with several people in program who, like me, traced their recoveries to mystical experiences.