• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. - A "Christian Nation?"

Cleisthenes said:
The founding fathers saw what happened with official religions and wanted a secular state that wasn't interfered with by religion
Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong, wrong! NOWHERE in the COnstitution does it suggest that the Founders intended the US to be a "secular state." First of all, the definition of secular is non-religious. I cleared this up in an earlier post.
Secondly, your entire argument hinges on one clause in the First Amendment - the Establishment Clause - one of the most controversial and misunderstood clauses in the entire document. Let's look at EXACTLY what the authors of the 1st Amendment say:
"Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of religion, or prohibiting the FREE EXERCISE thereof;........."
Click to expand...
You, apparently like many, seem to have a bit of trouble understanding basic semantics. One little 2-letter word in the Establishment clause - AN - negates your notion that the intent was to create a "secular state." The use of "an" as opposed to "the" in this line simply has the effect of saying that Congress can pass no law favoring a particular religion. These were educated men, and I'm certain, had their intent been secularism, they would have replaced "an" with "the," thus implying that ALL religions would be left out.

Many also seem to conveniently forget that the Establishment Clause was immediately followed by another; the Free Exercise Clause. Why was this clause added? If the Founders truly intended to create a "secular state," wouldn't the first clause have been quite enough? They added it for a reason, and we all know why, some of us are simply in denial, and can't seem to accept the fact that we started out as a nation founded upon a belief in God and upon Christian principles which, early-on, guided much of our foreign and domestic policy.
 
Last edited:
FluffyNinja said:
Many also seem to conveniently forget that the Establishment Clause was immediately followed by another clause the Free Exercise Clause. Why was this clause added? If the Founders truly intended to create a "secular state," wouldn't the first clause have been quite enough? They added it for a reason, and we all know why, some of us are simply in denial, and can't seem to accept the fact that we started out as a nation founded upon a belief in God and upon Christian principles which, early-on, guided much of our foreign and domestic policy.
Click to expand...


It must be hard, when your heroes the Founding Fathers disagree with you on your beliefs regarding religion and the founding of the nation, but far too many of them were either Dieists or some other entirely different flavor of religious for the United States to ever have been founded upon either a belief in the Christian God or upon Christian principles.

Besides -- how can you say, with a straight face, that the United States was founded upon Christian principles when slavery was not only legalized, but enshrined in the founding documents?
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Right.

Of course.

Because, as anybody knows, the Constitution is a holy document, and the Founding Fathers are its prophets, right?
Click to expand...
Strawman argument. I'm not so easily lured.:roll: Did I ever make the claim in ANY post that it was a "Holy" document. My OP wasn't even concerned with the Constituion itself.

You do remember that these are the same men who felt it suitable to "compromise" on counting a slave as 3/5ths of a free man for the purpose of the census by which House representation was determined, right?
Click to expand...
Uh, ........ yeah. And what does this have to do with their intentions for the futue of the state? We must also be smart enough to accept things in their correct context. 1789 was quite a long time ago, to apply today's "standards of decency" to 1789 is simply flawed logic.

Words on a paper do not righteousness make.
Click to expand...
Agreed.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Strawman argument. I'm not so easily lured.:roll: Did I ever make the claim in ANY post that it was a "Holy" document. My OP wasn't even concerned with the Constituion itself.
Click to expand...

You're pretty good at strawmen yourself. I wasn't addressing your OP, I was addressing your assertion of the importance of the intentions of the founding fathers.

Besides, since we're talking about religion and you seem to feel that the intentions of the founding fathers should be regarded as more important than they really are, it's not too far of a leap to make the religion comparison.

FluffyNinja said:
Uh, ........ yeah. And what does this have to do with their intentions for the futue of the state? We must also be smart enough to accept things in their correct context. 1789 was quite a long time ago, to apply today's "standards of decency" to 1789 is simply flawed logic.
Click to expand...


Nope, sorry, but you can't on the one hand state that we need to know and observe the intentions of the founding fathers in one breath and in the next breath not apply today's standards to those intentions.

If you're going to introduce the intentions of the founding fathers into a discussion of how government today should be operated, you are introducing those intentions to comparison with today's standards by the parameters you established.

Almost made it, but you just didn't wiggle fast enough.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
It must be hard, when your heroes the Founding Fathers disagree with you on your beliefs regarding religion and the founding of the nation, but far too many of them were either Dieists .....
Click to expand...
It must be hard to go through life with no real knowledge of historical perspective or context, which is apparently what you are doing. I'd always heard that the educational system in NY was good, but apparently thr History Departments seem to be a bit lacking.
Besides -- how can you say, with a straight face, that the United States was founded upon Christian principles when slavery was not only legalized, but enshrined in the founding documents?
Click to expand...
It's ALL about context, my friend. Slavery was also condoned in the Bible, fortunately, most Christians no longer take a strictly LITERAL interpretation of scripture, but rather, have come far enough to understand the context in which it was written. Evidently, you have not yet advanced to this level of understanding.:mrgreen:Keep working at it though, I'll be here to help you along the way.
 
FluffyNinja said:
It must be hard to go through life with no real knowledge of historical perspective or context, which is apparently what you are doing.
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me? The historical context of the United States was that it finds its European origins in men and women who fled Europe to get out from under, among other things, religious persecution, only to religiously persecute others.

That is the context of the religious portions of the First Amendment. Why on Earth would men, many of the most prominent of whom weren't even Christians, root the nation in Christian principles in light of the fact that Christians who fled other Christians then turned around and persecuted others?

Or is this one of those situations where you're looking for parallels between Christian tradition and the words of non-Christians, finding commonalities, and declaring that proof of the Christian foundation of the United States?

FluffyNinja said:
It's ALL about context, my friend. Slavery was also condoned in the Bible, fortunately, most Christians no longer take a strictly LITERAL interpretation of scripture, but rather, have come far enough to understand the context in which it was written. Evidently, you have not yet advanced to this level of understanding.:mrgreen:Keep working at it though, I'll be here to help you along the way.
Click to expand...

This is actually my argument with Christianity -- you can't say that something is the inspired word of God, except for this, that, and the other thing over here. Either it was all inspired or it's sufficiently diluted that it should be read as the work of man and should be processed as such.

If you're going to invoke the intentions of the founding fathers in an argument about modern government, you can't do so without shining the light of modern views on those intentions. The fact that you believe that you can is, at best, laughable.
 
The founding fathers - those who penned the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of the Confederation and the Constitution where overwhelmingly Christians. Nearly 55% of them were Episcopalian/Anglican, 19% Presbyterian, 17% Congregationalist. That accounts for 90% of the signers of these documents. These people are routinely referred to as ~ the founding fathers.

Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

Adherents.com is a growing collection of over 43,870 adherent statistics and religious geography citations: references to published membership/adherent statistics and congregation statistics for over 4,200 religions, churches, denominations, religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate concerns, etc. The religions of the world are enumerated here.
 
I looked at that chart and the first thing I asked myself is, "Where was the Hindu or Diest count?" I read a little more and saw that Jefferson was, in fact, cited as a founding father, and yet his religious beliefs were not listed or counted.

You can find more detail on Jefferson's personal beliefs here.

That link also includes discussion of Jefferson's feelings regarding a separation of Church and State:

For Jefferson, separation of church and state was a necessary reform of the religious "tyranny" whereby a religion received state endorsement, and those not of that religion were denied rights, and even punished.

Following the Revolution, Jefferson played a leading role in the disestablishment of religion in Virginia. Previously the Anglican Church had tax support.
Click to expand...

So anyway, I reviewed that page, found it didn't accurately represent my memory of Jefferson's religious inclanations, went off to research what those inclanations were, and discovered I was right. As per the above link he was a Diest who happened to think that most of the New Testament was fiction.

Since your source rolled up Jefferson as nicely and neatly as it could into a denomination of Christianity, when in fact his own views were not so simply classified, I pretty much wrote the whole thing off.

If they can't get Jefferson right, I'm not even going to bother to debunk them on the rest of the founders.

Sorry.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
I looked at that chart and the first thing I asked myself is, "Where was the Hindu or Diest count?" I read a little more and saw that Jefferson was, in fact, cited as a founding father, and yet his religious beliefs were not listed or counted.

You can find more detail on Jefferson's personal beliefs here.

That link also includes discussion of Jefferson's feelings regarding a separation of Church and State:



So anyway, I reviewed that page, found it didn't accurately represent my memory of Jefferson's religious inclanations, went off to research what those inclanations were, and discovered I was right. As per the above link he was a Diest who happened to think that most of the New Testament was fiction.

Since your source rolled up Jefferson as nicely and neatly as it could into a denomination of Christianity, when in fact his own views were not so simply classified, I pretty much wrote the whole thing off.

If they can't get Jefferson right, I'm not even going to bother to debunk them on the rest of the founders.

Sorry.
Click to expand...
Wikipedia again as a true, unbiased source.

from my link:

Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)

That attempt to brush this off is really so pathetic Dan, but really no different than the offerings from the other posters on this forum who have come before you.

The link did in fact mention the 3 founding fathers who were avowed Deists.

What's next? The: "those guys were actually atheists who identified as Christians to avoid persecution." line?
 
The silenced majority said:
Wikipedia again as a true, unbiased source.

from my link:

Thomas Jefferson Virginia Episcopalian (Deist)
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)

That attempt to brush this off is really so pathetic Dan, but really no different than the offerings from the other posters on this forum who have come before you.

The link did in fact mention the 3 founding fathers who were avowed Deists.

What's next? The: "those guys were actually atheists who identified as Christians to avoid persecution." line?
Click to expand...

Okay, first, your quoted portion proves my point -- that source made a pointed effort to pigeonhole as many people into a Christian denomination as it could manage by oversimplifying the religious views of the individual.

Hell, Jefferson was so at odds with the Christian establishment that he wrote his own damn version of the Bible. I don't see THAT interesting little tidbit noted in your Cliff's Notes version.

Second, you completely ignored the point regarding Jefferson's pursuit of the separation of Church and State, which went directly to contradict the points of others who have said that the founders wanted no such separation.

Third, if you believe that the source I pointed out is inaccurate, please feel free to point out the inaccuracies.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Nope, sorry, but you can't on the one hand state that we need to know and observe the intentions of the founding fathers in one breath and in the next breath not apply today's standards to those intentions.
Click to expand...
This statement is so far out there, I don't even know where to begin. Well, first, unless you've invented a time machine and can travel back to interact with the Founders, then I'd say that OUR perspectives, in TODAY'S CONTEXT, have ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING on what the Founders intended. Time to leave the World of Sci-Fi and REALIZE that what WE DO/THINK today DOES NOT CHANGE the FACTS of History.

It kind-of works the other way around. We call this the "Study of History." I realize that this may be an "alien" concept to you, but I'm trying. You see, HISTORY, is a WRITTEN ACCOUNT of what has happened in the PAST. As historians, we have an obligation to "piece" this evidence together in order to determine TRUTH in the accounts of our HISTORY. We don't pre-suppose that those in the past "saw" 200 years into the future and put their writings, beliefs and statements into OUR context.

Your approach here is completely flawed and borderline absurd. It seems you are still grasping at straws and throwing out senseless rebuttals simply for the sake of argument.

If you're going to introduce the intentions of the founding fathers into a discussion of how government today should be operated, you are introducing those intentions to comparison with today's standards by the parameters you established.
Click to expand...
Yes, but in the opposite direction from what you've implied. This is EXACTLY what INTENTIONS are - one's ideas regarding how things should "play out" in the future. By the way, these are not the "parameters" that I have established - this is how anyone who seriously studies history does it.:roll:
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Are you kidding me?
That is the context of the religious portions of the First Amendment. Why on Earth would men, many of the most prominent of whom weren't even Christians, root the nation in Christian principles in light of the fact that Christians who fled other Christians then turned around and persecuted others?
Click to expand...
bold emphasis - mine

This is fallacy that has already been disproven at least twice on this thread by TSM and myself.


This is actually my argument with Christianity -- you can't say that something is the inspired word of God, except for this, that, and the other thing over here. Either it was all inspired or it's sufficiently diluted that it should be read as the work of man and should be processed as such.
Click to expand...
Strawman.............yet, again, this is getting old. My claim was that many modern-day Christians no longer accept a Literal interpretation of every line of scripture. Besides being the inspired WORD OF GOD, the Bible is also a book of History, and as I've stated ad nauseum, history must be studied from the perspective of those who wrote it -- IN ITS PROPER CONTEXT.
If you're going to invoke the intentions of the founding fathers in an argument about modern government, you can't do so without shining the light of modern views on those intentions. The fact that you believe that you can is, at best, laughable.
Click to expand...
I can, and did. Just like every other sensible historian does. The fact that you posted these last two lines is, at best, laughable.:laughat:
 
Last edited:
FluffyNinja said:
#1 - Was the United States FOUNDED upon Christian principles?
Click to expand...
Probably. Depends on what you mean by "founded". If Christians would like to claim this as a victory for the history books so be it. The Constitution is all that matters.

FluffyNinja said:
#2 - Can/Should the United States be identified as a "Christian Nation" today?
Click to expand...
Why would we want to be labeled as such? If you want to label the country as a "Christian nation" so be it. If you want to pass legislation labeling the country as such... well... we better refer to the Constitution for that.

----------------

It seems that the only point in labeling the country as a Christian nation is the irrational fear of Islam. A similar occurrence happened about 50 years ago when the US became deathly afraid of those damn "atheist communists" and proceeded to add "in god we trust" and "one nation under God" to whatever they could. Because "as long as this country trusts in God, it will prevail."

:doh Why are people so stupid???

FluffyNinja said:
Perhaps many of the political, social and economic problems which are identified daily on this forum, could be avoided if we went back to our Christian roots.
Click to expand...
:roll::2funny:
And all the problems would be solved if we all just converted to Islam and got back to our Islamic roots. Or if we all became atheists and got down to our atheist roots.
 
scourge99 said:
It seems that the only point in labeling the country as a Christian nation is the irrational fear of Islam.
Click to expand...
Tell those who lost friends and family member on Sept. 11, 2001 that it is an "irrational fear."


Or if we all became atheists and got down to our atheist roots.
Click to expand...
The deepest "roots" of civilization are religious. We don't have Atheist roots. The word "Atheism" did not exist until the late 16th century.
 
FluffyNinja said:
Your approach here is completely flawed and borderline absurd. It seems you are still grasping at straws and throwing out senseless rebuttals simply for the sake of argument.
Click to expand...

Sure thing, whatever you say.


I was going to point out how I just convinced you to totally double back on your own logic, but I think I'll just refrain from responding.

I'd hate to be found guilty of grasping at straws.


:lol:
 
FluffyNinja said:
Tell those who lost friends and family member on Sept. 11, 2001 that it is an "irrational fear."
Click to expand...
Your fault is that you see religion as the cause of discontent and conflict among societies. For some examples you are correct. But to believe such a simplistic view is universal truth is naive. You obviously have given no thought to the much more deeply rooted problems of the human condition.

Religion doesn't kill people. Quit looking for a scapegoat in non-Christians. Ignorance and naiveté is often manipulated by the religious. No religion is innocent of this charge.

FluffyNinja said:
scourge99 said:
FluffyNinja said:
Perhaps many of the political, social and economic problems which are identified daily on this forum, could be avoided if we went back to our Christian roots.
Click to expand...
And all the problems would be solved if we all just converted to Islam and got back to our Islamic roots. Or if we all became atheists and got down to our atheist roots.
Click to expand...
The deepest "roots" of civilization are religious. We don't have Atheist roots. The word "Atheism" did not exist until the late 16th century.
Click to expand...
Are you dodging the issues or do I need to explain the presumptions you've made that I'm challenging? Here I'll make it easy....

What in the world makes you think that the "political, social and economic problems" will be solved simply by getting back to "Christian roots"? Have you forgotten that this country was founded by Christians escaping the persecution of other Christians? Have you forgotten that almost every person has a different idea of what "Christianity" means?
 
scourge99 said:
Religion doesn't kill people. Quit looking for a scapegoat in non-Christians. Ignorance and naiveté is often manipulated by the religious. No religion is innocent of this charge.
Click to expand...
No, but people are still being killed en masse "in the name of" certain religions - mainly Islam. No religion is innocent of manipulation - I agree; but not ALL religions are blowing innocent people up in bus stations and malls, nor are they sawing people's heads off on video and claiming it's in the name of their God. Only ONE religion that I know of is doing this on a consistent basis THESE DAYS, and it's certainly NOT MINE.


What in the world makes you think that the "political, social and economic problems" will be solved simply by getting back to "Christian roots"?
Click to expand...
Nothing "in the world" makes me believe it.....my Faith in God and in his promises make me believe it. I believe far too much of our policy, both foreign and domestic, is motivated by greed, imperialism, hunger for power, revenge, or for personal recogniton - none of which are Christian Principles.

For example, if we were truly a nation of Christian Principles - THERE WOULD BE NO HEALTHCARE ISSUE - one way or the other, this issue would have been addressed long ago. Christ stressed that we must first take care of the needs of the "Least among us" before addressing the needs of those whom already have the means of taking care of themselves.
Have you forgotten that almost every person has a different idea of what "Christianity" means?
Click to expand...
If they're truly Christians they don't. Christ's message of salvation is a universal one - cutting across all denominations.
 
Last edited:
If I may insert my two cents into this lengthy discussion;

I see religion as being analogous to guns. Religion doesn't kill people - people kill people.

And people corrupt the true nature of their religions, bending and twisting its message into their own dogmatic, violent views. I don't believe any religion is inherently violent if one looks at the message of the original prophet, but it can all too easily be abused.

That being said, religion can also be an emblem of peace. I don't think anyone can read the New Testament and suggest that Christ was a violent figure, or that he promoted violence in advocation for his ideals. Similarly I know plenty of Muslims who will swear that the message of Muhammad is a peaceful one (having not fully read the Qu'ran myself).

People become prone to violence driven by anger, ignorance or greed. Religion is but one tool used by dishonest men to deceive the masses for their own wicked purposes.
 
TacticalEvilDan said:
Okay, first, your quoted portion proves my point -- that source made a pointed effort to pigeonhole as many people into a Christian denomination as it could manage by oversimplifying the religious views of the individual.
Click to expand...

That's not at all provable. The majority of the statistics for that website were gleaned from 2 books. One that was penned prior to the midpoint of the 19th century: Signers of the Declaration of Independence JB Lossing 1848 & another that was published by the United States Department of the Interior: Signers of the Declaration: Historic Places Commemorating the Signing of the Declaration of Independence Robert G. Ferris 1975. Both books should be considered as reasonable unbiased accounts of the lives and views of the founders.

Hell, Jefferson was so at odds with the Christian establishment that he wrote his own damn version of the Bible. I don't see THAT interesting little tidbit noted in your Cliff's Notes version.
Click to expand...

Again. You're making yourself look like a fool for impugning the work of renowned historians & authors who actually lived much closer to the era in which this nation was born.

Funny. You shot your mouth off earlier: http://www.debatepolitics.com/1057584447-post81.html
TED said:
Why on Earth would men, many of the most prominent of whom weren't even Christians, root the nation in Christian principles in light of the fact that Christians who fled other Christians then turned around and persecuted others?
Click to expand...

Now the best you can do is take a flailing swing at my source which is well documented and absolutely dispels your prior assertion.

Second, you completely ignored the point regarding Jefferson's pursuit of the separation of Church and State, which went directly to contradict the points of others who have said that the founders wanted no such separation.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with your assertion that many of the prominent founders weren't even Christian. An irrelevant straw-man that I care not to indulge at this time.

Third, if you believe that the source I pointed out is inaccurate, please feel free to point out the inaccuracies.
Click to expand...

I just find it funny that some can question the veracity of certain links while using one that any lunatic can edit, as a true - unbiased source. That's all.

BTW, care to point out the inaccuracies of a book chronicling the lives of the founders - that was written in 1848, since were in the mood for calling out sources?
 
American has never been and never will be a "Christian Nation"...but prayerfully America will continue being a nation of Christians.
 
Thales said:
If I may insert my two cents into this lengthy discussion;

I see religion as being analogous to guns. Religion doesn't kill people - people kill people.
Click to expand...

But the analogy isn't agreed to in either case. Guns allow humans to more easily kill people. Religion allows for people to be more easily controlled through a central power.

These true statements are ignored by the bad analogy that removes both guns and religion from an argument that is specifically ABOUT guns and religion. It's always a nice try, and I understand the mistake, but it is a mistake nonetheless. No one suggests religion is a physical entity that can walk around and stab people, so to argue against that (religion doesn't kill people), is to argue against a strawman.

-Mach
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom