Others have disputed the consensus, as evidenced on this Internet Bulletin Board:

Subject:  John Adams, in context
From:  	  corumb@aol.com (CorumB)
Date:	  07 Apr 1998 08:27:59 EDT

Kevin>>John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813: 

The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.
Lester J. Capon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 2:339-40

The Secular Humanists on this board are trying to convince us all that the 
Founding Fathers were all atheists like Paine.<<

CorumB> No, just that the Founding Fathers recognized that even atheists were fine Americans. Adam held that the general principles which coincided with Christianity were part of the glue that helped hold our young nation together - not that the atheists had to worship God, nor that anyone had to believe in the divinity of Jesus, but that there are religious and philosophical morals and principles upon which we can all agree, to live peaceably together, and form a union from many disparate parts - E. Pluribus Unum. Let's look at that passage from Adams, in context this time, since he specifically includes atheists as part of that "beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen":

"The Paragraph is "Science and Morals are the great Pillars on which this Country has been raised to its present population, Oppulence and prosperity, and these alone, can advance, support and preserve it."

"Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors."
    Now, compare the paragraph in the Answer, with the paragraph in the Address, as both are quoted above: and see if We can find the Extent and the limits of the meaning of both.
    Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.
    Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No.
    The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.
    Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System. I could therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information, that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these general Principles. In favour of these general Principles in Phylosophy, Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of inferiour Fame." [emphasis in the original]

Subject:  Re: John Adams, in context
From:	  kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT)
Date:	  07 Apr 1998 14:41:26 EDT

In article <1998040712275901.IAA15260@ladder01.news.aol.com>, 
corumb@aol.com (CorumB) writes:

>Kevin>>John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813: 
>
>      The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence,
>      were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young
>      Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? 
>      I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these 
>      Sects were United: . . .  Now I will avow, that I then believe, 
>      and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as 
>      eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and
>      that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature 
>      and our terrestrial, mundane System.
>      Lester J. Capon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters 2 vols. (Chapel
>      Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 2:339-40
>
>The Secular Humanists on this board are trying to convince us all that the 
>Founding Fathers were all atheists like Paine.<<
>
>CorumB> No, just that the Founding Fathers recognized that even atheists were
>fine Americans. 

>Adam[s] held that the general principles which coincided with
>Christianity were part of the glue that helped hold our young nation together
>- not that the atheists had to worship God, nor that anyone had to believe in
>the divinity of Jesus, but that there are religious and philosophical morals
>and principles upon which we can all agree, to live
>peaceably together, and form a union from many disparate parts - E. Pluribus
>Unum. 

>Let's look at that passage from Adams, in context this time, since he
>specifically includes atheists as part of that "beautiful Assembly of young
>Gentlemen":
> [snip]
>   Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes?
>There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and
>American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans,
>German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians,
>Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants,
>Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who
>believe
>nothing"]."   Very few however of several of these Species. 

>Nevertheless
>all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general
>Principles of English and American Liberty.

We hear a lot today about how Johnny can't read, how he can't write, and the trouble he is having finding France on a map. It is also true that Johnny is having difficulty distinguishing right from wrong. Along with illiteracy and innumeracy, we must add deep moral confusion to the list of educational problems. Increasingly, today's young people know little or nothing about the Western moral tradition. [What Adams called "the general Principles of English and American Liberty."]

This was recently demonstrated by Tonight Show host Jay Leno. Leno frequently does "man-on-the-street" interviews, and one night he collared some young people to ask them questions about the Bible. "Can you name one of the Ten Commandments?" he asked two college-age women. One replied, "Freedom of Speech?" Mr. Leno said to the other, "Complete this sentence: Let he who is without sin. . . ." Her response was, "have a good time?" Mr. Leno then turned to a young man and asked, "Who, according to the Bible, was eaten by a whale?" The confident answer was, "Pinocchio."

These young people are morally confused. They are the students I and other teachers of ethics see every day.

The last few decades of the twentieth century have seen a steady erosion of knowledge and a steady increase in moral relativism. This is partly due to the diffidence of many teachers who are confused by all the talk about pluralism.

Of course, there are pressing moral issues around which there is no consensus; as a modern pluralistic society we are arguing about all sorts of things. This is understandable. Moral dilemmas arise in every generation. But, long ago, we achieved consensus on many basic moral questions. Cheating, cowardice, and cruelty are wrong. As one pundit put it, "The Ten Commandments are not the Ten Highly Tentative Suggestions."

Back to Adams:

>I could
>therefore safely say, consistently with all my then and present Information,
>that I believed they would never make Discoveries in contradiction to these
>general Principles. [of Christianity - kc] In favour of these general Principles 
  in Phylosophy,
>Religion and Government, I could fill Sheets of quotations from Frederick of
>Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Reausseau and Voltaire, as well as
>Neuton and Locke: not to mention thousands of Divines and Philosophers of
>inferiour Fame." [emphasis in the original]  

This was a Christian nation.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
---------------------------------------------
 
And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7