Did the founders intend this to be a Christian nation?

Kenneth T. Cornelius · 03-08-05, 01:21 PM

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the Federalist Paper #2 written by John Jay. The main thrust of the paper is that a union should be formed. These give reasons why such a union would have a lot going for it.

Quote:

It has often given me pleasure to observe that independent America was not composed of detached and distant territories, but that one connected, fertile, widespreading country was the portion of our western sons of liberty. Providence has in a particular manner blessed it with a variety of soils and productions, and watered it with innumerable streams, for the delight and accommodation of its inhabitants. A succession of navigable waters forms a kind of chain round its borders, as if to bind it together; while the most noble rivers in the world, running at convenient distances, present them with highways for the easy communication of friendly aids, and the mutual transportation and exchange of their various commodities.

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people--a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

In regard to the characteristics of the people, notice that what is stressed here is the lack of reasons for disagreement rather than the virtue of being English and speaking English and so forth. Jay would doubtless have written much the same had the country's inhabitants been Turks, except that the proposed form of the new government would certainly have been different. The key words here are same and similar. Therefore when Jay writes of the people professing the same religion he is not expressing any value judgement on religion, its necessity or irrelevance. He is merely eliminating it as a source of contention. There is nothing here to indicate that he thinks America should be governed by Christian principles.

Blue Hobgoblin · 03-08-05, 02:00 PM

The Founding Fathers wanted to create a country based on reason and free thinking, not religious dogma.

Pacridge · 03-08-05, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenneth T. Cornelius

Here are a couple of paragraphs from the Federalist Paper #2 written by John Jay. The main thrust of the paper is that a union should be formed. These give reasons why such a union would have a lot going for it.

In regard to the characteristics of the people, notice that what is stressed here is the lack of reasons for disagreement rather than the virtue of being English and speaking English and so forth. Jay would doubtless have written much the same had the country's inhabitants been Turks, except that the proposed form of the new government would certainly have been different. The key words here are same and similar. Therefore when Jay writes of the people professing the same religion he is not expressing any value judgement on religion, its necessity or irrelevance. He is merely eliminating it as a source of contention. There is nothing here to indicate that he thinks America should be governed by Christian principles.

I kind of like the Christian principles- too bad so many Christians don't follow them.

Repubteen · 03-08-05, 05:04 PM

In a sense this country is based on christian morals. All our laws are based on right and wrong, which is outlined in the christian religion. the country did not based on Islam where is you blow yourself up and kill people while doing it you'll be rewarded with 72 virgins.

Naughty Nurse · 03-08-05, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Repubteen

In a sense this country is based on christian morals. All our laws are based on right and wrong, which is outlined in the christian religion.

So Christians invented the concepts of right and wrong? In all of the thousands of years of history before Christianity nobody had ever thought of those?

Really?

Christians do not have a monopoly on right, and non-Christians do not have a monopoly on wrong.

Squawker · 03-08-05, 06:46 PM

Quote:

The key words here are same and similar. Therefore when Jay writes of the people professing the same religion he is not expressing any value judgement on religion, its necessity or irrelevance. He is merely eliminating it as a source of contention. There is nothing here to indicate that he thinks America should be governed by Christian principles.

This is one man. One man didn't decide what the constitution should or should not contain. Just as we have many opinions here, mine has no more weight than yours should we decide to make a charter of rules. The majority opinion ruled, and often by a slim margin.

ShamMol · 03-08-05, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Naughty Nurse

So Christians invented the concepts of right and wrong? In all of the thousands of years of history before Christianity nobody had ever thought of those?

Really?

Christians do not have a monopoly on right, and non-Christians do not have a monopoly on wrong.

Bingo, you hit the nail on the button by saying that, but there is a universal sense of right and wrong. what I think that may have meant was that RELIGION, cause it sure as hell ain't only Christianity, teaches us now what is right and wrong. But that is wrong as well. Who we learn right from wrong from is our parents or our mentors. We learn through them, but they have influences on what taught them, sometimes it is religion, and other times, it is not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

This is one man. One man didn't decide what the constitution should or should not contain. Just as we have many opinions here, mine has no more weight than yours should we decide to make a charter of rules. The majority opinion ruled, and often by a slim margin.

But now, instead of the simple majority rule, it is, in the US, we have rule of the majority but not at the expense fo the minority.

I am not in the majority and I sure as hell don't want people telling me that I get my values from CHRISTIANITY. YOU DON'T HAVE A MONOPOLY ON MORALITY IF YOU ARE ****ING RELIGIOUS, GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD (that was directed to everyone who does, not the person i quoted).

anomaly · 03-08-05, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Repubteen

In a sense this country is based on christian morals. All our laws are based on right and wrong, which is outlined in the christian religion. the country did not based on Islam where is you blow yourself up and kill people while doing it you'll be rewarded with 72 virgins.

Just wanted to say that that is the most ignorant thing I've read on this site so far concerning Muslims. And Sham (right above me ^) is exactly right. If you people want to practice your religion, Ok great do it. But do not pass laws reflecting it, thus forcing the rest of us to follow some of your 'morals'. Example: Don't take evolution out of schools, don't ban abortion, don't ban gay marriage. All of these are just silly issues that somehow Christians steam over. Basically, to sum it all up, just listen to Naughty's quote.

ShamMol · 03-08-05, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Repubteen

In a sense this country is based on christian morals. All our laws are based on right and wrong, which is outlined in the christian religion. the country did not based on Islam where is you blow yourself up and kill people while doing it you'll be rewarded with 72 virgins.

you are an idiot. that is a radical interpretation of the quran.

Islam is based on five pillars. And a key element to Islam is peace above all else...so to say that they glorify that is a falsehood, and people like you should stop turning this war on terror into the crusades.

Kenneth T. Cornelius · 03-09-05, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawker

This is one man. One man didn't decide what the constitution should or should not contain. Just as we have many opinions here, mine has no more weight than yours should we decide to make a charter of rules. The majority opinion ruled, and often by a slim margin.

Geez! It is seldom my comments trigger this kind of response. I am flattered.

You are absolutely right, this was indeed just one man. One man writing to express what must have been pretty much a consensus opinion, who almost had to have had the concurrence of Madison and Hamilton. When he wrote what he did, he most likely didn't think much about it. The main idea was homogeneity and religion was just something that fitted in there. Even so, our writings have a tendency to reveal fundamental attitudes.

I made a mistake when I used the word Christian, though. It should have said religious principles.