America is not a Xstian Nation

[mikegagagaga]

Hey y'all, I found this essay at http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/r/r-misc/reyes021705.htm

This article was written by Robert Paul Reyes (rreyes4966@aol.com) This is a serious essay and merits discussion and review.

AMERICA IS NOT A CHRISTIAN NATION

America is a Christian nation and it was founded on Christian principles. This is the Big Lie that is constantly being uttered from fundamentalist pulpits. This untruth has been repeated so often, that most Christians believe that Jesus Christ was one of the Founding Fathers of our great nation.

This was not true when America was founded more than two centuries ago, and it's certainly not true today ;America is one of the most religiously diverse nations on the planet. It's this ethnic, religious and political diversity that's our greatest strength; religious polarization can only weaken our union.

If fundamentalists lie about this important matter -- they shouldn't be believed when they wax indignant on moral and spiritual matters. America is not a Christian nation; abortion is not murder; feminists are not witches; abstinence-only sex education does not work; SpongeBob and Tinky Winky are not gay (not that there is anything wrong with being homosexual); and George W. Bush does not have a direct line to the Almighty.

Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ideals.The intellectual leaders who created America believed that human reason could be used to combat ignorance, superstition and tyranny ; they had a natural animosity toward organized religion. It's not surprising that God is only a footnote in the grand documents that are the bedrock of our democracy.

The Constitution makes no mention whatever of any deity. In the eighty-five essays that make up The Federalist Papers, the Supreme Being is mentioned only twice. In the Declaration of Independence, the Big Guy gets two brief nods: A reference to "the Laws of Nature and Nature's God," and the often quoted line about men being "endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

If the Founding Fathers were Christians and they wanted to establish a Christian nation, then why didn't they mention Jesus Christ even once in a document that they knew would be the cornerstone and foundation of the emerging democracy? That's like Marx writing the "Communist Manifesto" without mentioning "socialism".

The distinguished leaders of the American revolution were not devout individuals, and they fought energetically to erect, in Thomas Jefferson's immortal words, "a wall of separation between church and state."

If we define a Christian as a believer in the divinity of Jesus Christ, then most of the leading lights of the American Revolution were not Christians at all. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and Tom Paine were deists -- they believed in one Supreme Being but rejected revelation and all the supernatural elements of evangelical Christianity. John Adams was a professed liberal Unitarian; in his published writings he seemed more deist than Christian. In other words if these gentlemen were alive today, they would be more at home in a liberal Presbyterian congregation than at Jerry Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church.

It's latter-day interlopers who have breached the wall of separation between church and state. In God We Trust" did not appear on our coinage until the Civil War, and "under God" was introduced into the Pledge of Allegiance during the McCarthy hysteria in 1954.

If we really want to abide by the spirit of the Constitution and The Declaration of Independence -- we will put an end to all this foolishness about bringing back God into our public schools. Those who imagine a Christian America would be paradise, would be well advised to consider the theocracies of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Ironically, as our nation becomes less Christian and more religiously diverse, evangelicals redouble their efforts to make America more Christian.

Everyone who loves democracy and freedom must fight the efforts of fundamentalists to tear down the wall of separation between church and state. Jesus Christ may reign supreme in evangelical churches, but He should be kicked to the curb if He tries to scale the wall of separation and enter the political arena.

America is not a Christian nation. America is not a Christian nation. America is not a Christian nation. God, it feels good telling the truth. I may be a "little voice crying in the wilderness", but with the truth on my side, I will defeat a lie -- no matter how big.

Robert Paul Reyes

[serenity]

Very true. I say to hell with the fundamentalists...just as they are saying to hell with me. At least i have reason, logic, history, decency and morality on my side.

[Dangerrmouse]

Not to mention "Enlightenment".

[Senor Herberto]

america is a secular nation, as church and state are seperate functions. a state must be able to comply with the religious beliefs of each individual.

however, america is not an anti-christian nation just by not being a 'christian nation'. america isn't an islamic nation either, but it isn't anti-islamic either [we hope].

[Churlant]

Supporting documentation for this thread's thesis:

Official text from the Treaty of Tripoli, passed by the Senate unanimously and without objection, and signed by John Adams in 1797.


As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.


http://www.nobeliefs.com/document.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm
http://home.att.net/~utahatheistnews/Tripoli.html

And, as always when this example is shown as a basis for declaring the U.S. a deist, rather than a Christian, paradise - I will address the most expected counter-points:

1. The phrase in question (highlighted in red by me) does not appear in the Arabic version
2. The phrase was understood to mean that the US did not have officially
hostile relations with nations which were officially Muslim.
3. The treaty was renegotiated a few years later. The phrase was indisputably NOT a part of the subsequent treaty.

1. The phrase DID appear in the version voted on and signed by the United States Congress and President. Whether or not it appeared on the Arabic version (and there is debate as to whether this is a factual claim to begin with see link #3) is irrelevant.
2. The phrase seems to be quite clear in scope and interpretation. That this would be a critic's claim, when point 1 seems to conclude the Muslims in question didn't even get the text which is supposed to be comforting them, is interesting... but still not relevant. "Not founded on the Christian Religion" does not mean founded without religion at all - a point that some seem to lack.
3. I'll have to take this one on its word as I wasn't able to find a whole lot about the renegotiation... though it is still not relevant. The original was voted and signed with words indicating the U.S. as anything but a Christian theocracy. Point number 3, then, is nothing but a diversion.

Anyhow.. I'm off to bed :p I'm sure someone will have torn this up by morning, having explained how Article IX was either faked, misinterpreted, mistranslated, or otherwise a poor choice of words for the treaty's author. This is normally how these things are handled after all - no sense accepting and facing such things straight forward when we can try and destroy credibility (either of author or of wording) instead ;)

-JC

[dhirschp]

I agree. It is not a Christian nation, it is not an Islamic nation, it is not Jewish nation, it is a secular nation. I hate it when people say otherwise. I might also ad that those you justify dismantling seperation of church and state have not read their constitution.

[DRMIZER]

WHERE WHERE ALL OF YOU PEOPLE DURING ELECTION TIME, DAMN IT? Don't you realize that GW won on this one baseless point?

[JoeR]

I think the stronger point would be Kerry being a poor candidate. I know people who maintain that Bush stole it in 2000, that voted Bush this time because of Kerry being a poor option (or at least perceived as one). Its all in the swing voters, and a better Democrat candidate may have pushed Bush out, though not likely. The whole sitting wartime president thing.

[dhirschp]

I must say what really irked are the people who voted for Gore in 2000 election and felt Bush stole the election, yet decided to vote for Bush in 2004 because they felt Bush made them safe and their support for the war in Iraq.

[jamesrage]

America is a Christian nation and it was founded on Christian principles. This is the Big Lie that is constantly being uttered from fundamentalist pulpits.

Majority of Americans are christian and were founded on christian principals.Our forfathers were christians.The first settlers in America were Christian.Who ever doesn't understand that doesn't understand history of our country.

[Larani]

Majority of Americans are christian and were founded on christian principals.Our forfathers were christians.The first settlers in America were Christian.Who ever doesn't understand that doesn't understand history of our country.

Well this is one Christian that understands Jesus words about honesty and the above simply is being dishonest. While American does indeed have a majority christian population of many varied sects and denominations The founding documents of this nation were based on Logic and Reason not any particular faith. Now if one argues that Christianity as Jesus taught it is based upon sound rational and logical principals then an arguement could then be made that in such a way but then again sound rational and logical arguements wouldn't require the ego and vanity element as Jamesrage above posts simply implies.

[Knightman]

Are the words, " In God we Trust" not still imprinted on the coinage of the United States of America?

http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html

some would like that removed.

http://www.petitiononline.com/igwtrfc/petition.html

I am not a citizen of the U.S.A. but I do like the idea that at least in theory having that simple statment on your coins gives a feeling of a country that cares, has morals and ideals. In practice, it has not worked out that way..Most religions of the human race do not preach hatred and violance against our fellow man that is a process of corruption of a true meaning.

The extremeist ends of the spectrum are the the ones to point fingers at if any finger pointing need be done.

[DRMIZER]

Knight. . . .it is nice in theory but shallow in practice.

[Knightman]

How incredably true.

Throughout the history of man, how many have suffered greatly from others of guided by their religion....

[cpwill]

the problem here is not with individuals who want government to recognize religion; but rather with individuals who are unable to see any two options other than a secular government and a theocracy. yes, when signing a treaty with the bey (one in which we were rather being forced; as the article about tribute serves witness) an article was added by a deist friend of thomas paines' to the US version which claimed that the US wasn't founded on Christianity, "Christianity" being the only factor mentioned, leading to a conceptualization of it not being the sole cornerstone. to an extent, such is correct, we were founded on a host of things, of which Christianity is merely a part (although a vital one). however, now you have the problem of weighing that against later effects which would rather serve to oppose the point. among other things, this "secular" nation of ours has a habit of referencing the trinity in its' early treaties.;)

furthermore, you have, very clearly, the idea coming from virtually all of the founding fathers that this was a religious nation. firstly, much is made of the first amendment about no federal church; but so many seem to ignore the fact that this simply meant that the founding fathers were reserving that right for the individual states, as is shown (for example) in the state church of Massachussetts, which continued to function for quite some time. one of the early sources of conflict in colonial america had been religious differences, and so the first amendment isn't so much a "we are a non-religious nation" so much as it is a "okay, every colony/state get's to do it's own thing without outside interference". Secondly; the founding fathers were often clear on the importance of religion within the government. George Washington stated that "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports, It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.", and John Adams made it even more clear when he said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and Religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." surely these two are not the fundamentalist theocratic whacko's that so many seem to enjoy claiming make up the political right. they were simply aware of the fact that a government needs recognize and interplay with religion without itself becoming one.

[Larani]

the problem here is not with individuals who want government to recognize religion; but rather with individuals who are unable to see any two options other than a secular government and a theocracy.

This is not the problem the problem is with individuals who want the government recognizing their religion not just religion. cpwill facts are facts as a Christian myself standing between the divisions of others and Christians the issue is with us Christians not the others. When I speak to Agnostics and Atheists and men of other faiths the overriding remarks is why do Christians want to put their stamp on everything as if they own it? Why do they even want to refer to this Nation as a Christian Nation?

Now these questions do not come from thin air they are the byproduct of behaviors implemented by Christians, and observed by others, which leads to the questions.

Case in point verifiable concrete evidence that what I say is true and factual and not opinion is the very existence of this thread and so many that have had the same basic outline.

You also speak of the founding fathers and the recognition of religion in our new country. Yes sure the founding fathers recognized religion but I put stress on the word religion not any particular religion like today’s current Christians wish to do. Now some might say what is the difference the difference is huge. If the government say’s we recognize the religions and faiths of men and we will uphold and protect them this is indeed Good, as men do indeed have many faiths and religions, but as soon as any religions tries to change that to The government recognizes XXX religion and faith by this very action other faiths are denigrated and problems begin to loom on the horizon. This is the wisdom of the founding fathers they knew this and had hundreds of years of man as prefect example of this cause and effect and wrote our founding documents to avoid any such conflict. Any man is free to choose his faith or not in this country and all we be respected, recognized and protected but no particular religion will be allowed to place its stamp on America none for when that happens trouble will begin brewing.

So you see the problem is not with others that are not Christians the problem is with us Christians who are demanding more and more recognition for our particular religion and for my part and to all other Americans who I know such actions are clearly insulting this Christian apologizes.

Now such an apology does not mean I take responsibility for the actions of other Christians I do not nor could I even do so. The point of the apology is simply to say I recognize who is doing what and that I hear the complaints of others who are not Christian and I recognize they have a legitimate complaint against some of us Christians who feel the need for whatever weakness Greed, Vanity Ego, who knows to claim America as belonging to them even if such actions by their very nature are excluding and insulting.

[Russikan]

yes, when signing a treaty with the bey (one in which we were rather being forced; as the article about tribute serves witness) an article was added by a deist friend of thomas paines' to the US version which claimed that the US wasn't founded on Christianity,

Interesting theory that you were forced to sign a treaty that you wrote after winning a (fleet)battle.

"Christianity" being the only factor mentioned, leading to a conceptualization of it not being the sole cornerstone. to an extent, such is correct, we were founded on a host of things, of which Christianity is merely a part (although a vital one). however, now you have the problem of weighing that against later effects which would rather serve to oppose the point. among other things, this "secular" nation of ours has a habit of referencing the trinity in its' early treaties.
Wow! You mean the white male Christian landowning officials managed to affect the treaties they signed and wrote.

Just curious, do you mean prior to 1789.

furthermore, you have, very clearly, the idea coming from virtually all of the founding fathers that this was a religious nation. firstly, much is made of the first amendment about no federal church; but so many seem to ignore the fact that this simply meant that the founding fathers were reserving that right for the individual states, as is shown (for example) in the state church of Massachussetts, which continued to function for quite some time. one of the early sources of conflict in colonial america had been religious differences, and so the first amendment isn't so much a "we are a non-religious nation" so much as it is a "okay, every colony/state get's to do it's own thing without outside interference".
Yes, I am sure that Jefferson the deist, Adams the Unitarian, and Washignton who was called a diest by his own preacher and who, when told that he either had to take communion or stop coming, never went to church again were all big on this being a religeous nation. Oh and Benjamin the deist/agnostic.

Also lets correct the misconception that it was so the states could have their own churches. The first amendmant was made clearly for the purpose of protecting minority religeons from persecution from larger ones. State Churches would still be as bad as national ones in this respect. Thats like saying that Germany can split into the north which persecutes all non Lutherans and the south which does the same for all non Catholics.

Secondly; the founding fathers were often clear on the importance of religion within the government. George Washington stated that "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports, It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.", and John Adams made it even more clear when he said "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and Religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." surely these two are not the fundamentalist theocratic whacko's that so many seem to enjoy claiming make up the political right. they were simply aware of the fact that a government needs recognize and interplay with religion without itself becoming one.
No the Founders were practical people (with the exception of Jefferson who was an idealist). They new that at the time nobody could imagine not being able to do everything on the basis of religeon. Both of the quotes you gave us were by people who would be delighted at the present circumstances of religeon not interfering with government (thats why they put it in your constitution).

[historyteach]

It is important to remember one vital distinction.
What the documents say that make up this country, written by the founders in their political roles as founders of this nation;
and what those very individuals may have said in a political context.
Politicians say many things that have no practical meaning; indeed that they don't believe at all. They do so for political purposes - getting a vote or support on another issue...
That is a far different matter than writting the documents upon which this country was founded and would be run.
The statement, "seperation of church and state," is nowhere in the Constitution. It is in a letter that Jefferson wrote to a friend, stating very clearly the original INTENT of the article in the First Amendment.
In law, INTENT matters...

Just for the record, one other issue to address....
http://www.aish.com/literacy/jewishhistory/America_and_Jewish_Values.asp
No, the United States of America is NOT a "Christian" country.

Larani,
As usual, your analysis is insightful, levelheaded and generous. Thank you!
Shalom!

[Viking]

Our forfathers were christians.The first settlers in America were Christian.Who ever doesn't understand that doesn't understand history of our country.

1) Not all the FOREfathers were Christians.
2) I might have missed this but for some reason I dont think the Vikings were Christians.....unless Valhalla was recently mentioned in the bible? Was it? Let me know if it was. Thanks!

[Dangerrmouse]

I understood that the first settlers walked in over the land bridge to proto-Alaska as the Ice age ended.

[Churlant]

1) Not all the FOREfathers were Christians.
2) I might have missed this but for some reason I dont think the Vikings were Christians.....unless Valhalla was recently mentioned in the bible? Was it? Let me know if it was. Thanks!

Hehehe... I love the spirit, but that one's a bit cheap ;) It's not as if the Vikings were around long.

Hell, why not point out the natives who were here long before us? Talk about heathens...

-JC