Happy Atheist Forum

This is a topic that I have found interesting and often repeated.  I first heard of this in Presbyterian Church that our Founding Fathers were Christians and believed the US was to become a nation based on Christian principles.

What I appreciate about our Founding Fathers is that they considered history and had the foresight to avoid future war, enmity, strife, and pain.  What they did was truly, truly remarkable.  They founded a mostly peaceful secular nation that not only removed religion from Government, but at the same time encouraged thriving religious freedom.  This is enshrined in one of my most favorite lines in the Constitution.

QuoteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This is truly astounding.  The amendment forbids any particular state sanctioned religion, which historically led to constant civil wars all over the world, it also allowed for any and all people of all faith to live their faith without the duress of institutionally enacted divine laws.

What do you all think?  What have you heard?  Did our Founding Fathers really intend to find a Christian Nation or more broadly a Religious Nation?  Were they influenced by history coming from Britain that had a State Religion?

What about you who are from another country or nation?  Is this vision well known, frowned upon, agreed with, or otherwise?

I know there are countries that literally have sets of secular and religious laws with secular and religious courts that often conflict.

Quote from: "deekayfry"This is a topic that I have found interesting and often repeated.  I first heard of this in Presbyterian Church that our Founding Fathers were Christians and believed the US was to become a nation based on Christian principles.

What I appreciate about our Founding Fathers is that they considered history and had the foresight to avoid future war, enmity, strife, and pain.  What they did was truly, truly remarkable.  They founded a mostly peaceful secular nation that not only removed religion from Government, but at the same time encouraged thriving religious freedom.  This is enshrined in one of my most favorite lines in the Constitution.

QuoteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

This is truly astounding.  The amendment forbids any particular state sanctioned religion, which historically led to constant civil wars all over the world, it also allowed for any and all people of all faith to live their faith without the duress of institutionally enacted divine laws.

What do you all think?  What have you heard?  Did our Founding Fathers really intend to find a Christian Nation or more broadly a Religious Nation?  Were they influenced by history coming from Britain that had a State Religion?

What about you who are from another country or nation?  Is this vision well known, frowned upon, agreed with, or otherwise?

I know there are countries that literally have sets of secular and religious laws with secular and religious courts that often conflict.

No, in fact, often they spoke out against religion.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/disp ... quote2.htm (http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm)

Quote from: "GAYtheist"No, in fact, often they spoke out against religion.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/disp ... quote2.htm (http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm)

I'm sure some still were for it though
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp)

QuoteThe very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
The exact quote is "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Jay wrote it in a private letter to Jedidiah Morse in 1797.

This should be enough to settle the issue as it is an official US document....yet pro-christian nation proponents tend to overlook or disregard this document:

Quote from: "Treaty of Tripoli, 1796"Art. 11. 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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

source:  http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html)


Prea, note how I used my own words when introducing others to quoted text?

Quote from: "Whitney"This should be enough to settle the issue as it is an official US document....yet pro-christian nation proponents tend to overlook or disregard this document:

Quote from: "Treaty of Tripoli, 1796"Art. 11. 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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.

source:  http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html)


Prea, note how I used my own words when introducing others to quoted text?

Again... ...that is all.

The concept of a Christian nation is merely a political tool used to pull in the largest possible demographic.

Quote from: "Prea"

Quote from: "GAYtheist"No, in fact, often they spoke out against religion.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/disp ... quote2.htm (http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm)

I'm sure some still were for it though
http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp (http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/capital.asp)

QuoteThe very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said, "Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."
The exact quote is "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
Jay wrote it in a private letter to Jedidiah Morse in 1797.

In legalese "should" is a recomendation but not legaly binding while "shall" means you WILL comply or face legal repercussions.

Quote from: "Tanker"In legalese "should" is a recomendation but not legaly binding while "shall" means you WILL comply or face legal repercussions.

Just commenting to support what you said...it is very true that "shall" is a lot stronger term legally than should...should is basically just a suggestion while shall requires compliance.  We have to use shall on construction documents since they are legally binding if we have to go to court.

This topic was discussed in depth recently on a history forum to which I belong.  The Treaty of Tripoli, which Whitney quoted earlier, was brought up, and since it was written during Washington's presidency and signed under the presidency of John Adams, it seems to me to be a valid reflection of the thoughts of the "founding fathers."  It's mentioned, along with several other points of interest relating to this topic, on the Our Founding Fathers Were Not Christians (http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html) page.  Personally, I think that page is a bit too strident and biased, though.  There is little doubt that many of the founding fathers were indeed Christian.  It might be truthfully said, though, that the majority of the most prominent among them were not.  For an examination of the beliefs of several of the most prominent founding fathers as expressed in their writings, you can look at the Religion and the Founding Fathers (http://www.earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm) page from Early American History.net.

Quote from: "GAYtheist"No, in fact, often they spoke out against religion.

Agree in part, like today's politicians there were those who heavily favored religion as a part of government, those dead set against it, or others that were neutral.  Although, today, you have a better chance of throwing a snowball through hell than to find a politician who denies being religious.

Generally speaking, even though I am atheist, I appreciate that our Founding Fathers enacted a constitutional amendment that saves us from a lot grief, bloodshed, wars, and pain.  Keep in mind this enactment was radical for its time.  This amendment prevented a whole alternate history that would mirror religious wars that occurred within Africa, Europe, and Asia for hundreds and thousands of years.

I am curious, too.  Do we have members from other countries, theist or otherwise, who know of this?  What about the laws from your country?

I know that their are nations that have two or more sets of laws.  For example, in some countries, there are laws that only pertain to say followers of Islam, and then laws for everyone else.

Even in India, which is the world's largest democracy, they have laws that are exclusively religious and exclusively secular.

If you can, educate me and us

As far as I know, the Founders of USA where not militant anticlericalists as the jacobine french revolutionaries, but they where in favor of a secular state with a clear separation of church and state.  I wouldn´t go as far as to think they where atheists, although some of them probably were even though they never expressly said it, such as Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Jefferson.

deekayfry, I´m from Argentina.  Here, it is written in our constitution, and it hasn´t changed since 1863 despite several reformes and ammendments, that "the federal government supports (or sustains) the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church".  Also it is a requirement to be president of the republic to be a catholic; however it isn´t a requirement to be a catholic to hold any other public elected office, federal or provincial, these elected officials must solemntly swear over the "holy catholic scriptures" their appointment oath... only one legislature exceptionaly allowed a jewish governor to swear on the constitution, but not on the Torah.  There is a big doctrinal debate about what the "supports (or sustains" actually means:  some say it means that the federal government must economically support the Church -as a matter of fact it is the state that pays the wages for priests and parish dependents-, others say it means that the Catholic confession is the official religion of the state.  Besides the constitutional status of the Catholic Church, it also enjoys other privileges over other confessions, such as having "public entity", and tax free status over her properties.

The argentine history of the relation of Church and State is very different from the USA´s.  Partly because because of the spanish heritage and idiosincracy, partly because the local church took active involvement in the times of independence , fully supporting the revolutionary movement.  Over the years, since independence (1816), it took more than half century to sanction a constitution (1863) due to internal political conflicts, and it took much longer (1880 and afterwards) for the State to start vindicating faculties that were traditionally the Church´s, such as keeping records of births, marriages and death, or public laicist education.  Imagine it took more than 100 years since the sanction of our first constitution for the state to have legislated over "civil marriage" (1960), and another 30 years to legislate over divorce.  Today the Church´s power is very limited indeed, but it still holds an influence over a large part of the population, and still government has a hard time with isses such as sex education, abortion, gay civil union or marriage, not to mention the constant harrasment the Church exercises by critiquing every government...

None of the founding fathers publicly identified as "atheist" http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_F ... igion.html (http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html)

While a 4 of them were Unitarian or deist (John Adams, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin) the rest claimed to be from various christian denominations.  Most founding fathers, if not all, were members of the Masonic lodge; which many Christians today would probably consider cult-like and sacrilegious due to their use of astrology and weird rituals.

I personally think that it is even more obvious that the US was not founded as a Christian nation when a group obviously composed of mostly Christians didn't include the 10 commandments as part of law, didn't mention Jesus, and left out the Creator/God from the constitution all together (some people are a bit too dense to realize that the Declaration is not the constitution and even it only mentions "nature's God" and "Creator"  very deist terminology.  Then on top of all this included wording to form a separation between government and religion.

And for those Christians who want to include religious laws in our government...which denomination do we use as a basis?  I know most who complain would sure be pissed if we chose Catholicism as the basis and almost everyone would be upset if the gov chose Pentecostal.  The wall protects the religious freedom of Christians just as much (or more) as it does atheists.

I dislike it whenever anyone tries to bring up what the founding fathers personally believed as some kind of proof of how they wanted this nation to run.  Just because a Christian takes part in creating a government, that doesn't stand as proof that the person was intending to create a Christian government.  If I, an atheist, start a club where I say everyone can join and be equally heard, I would be pissed if I found out that years later people were trying to make it a specifically atheist club simply because I was atheist and I started the club.  That logic makes no sense to me.  Like Whitney said, the treaty of Tripoli spells it out pretty clearly - this is NOT a Christian nation, nor is it an atheist, Jewish, Pagan, Deist or anything else nation, this is supposed to be a nation where everyone can believe or not believe whatever and it has as little effect as possible on the political landscape.

I think all of the "founding fathers" were "Christians" during their times because it would have been political suicide to have not been.  Surely, if any of them had said they were atheist, there is no telling what would have happened to them.

Look at today's politicians, I firmly believe that Obama is an atheist, and yet, he says his administration will appeal the recent court ruling against a national day of prayer.  Why would a man who taught constitutional law, NOT see that a national day of prayer is counter to the separation clause?  The answer is very simple, he wants to be re-elected in 2012 and to NOT have his administration appeal the ruling would be used against him in the coming elections.

To me, atheists are today where homosexuals were 50 years ago, and when, as a group, we come together for more than just debate, we will be able to demand equal representation in government.  Then, there will be more pressure on government to repeal or refrain from, laws that go against the separation of church and state.  If we do not do more to fight against this, there is an Evangelical Movement afoot that wants to bring back Christian Law and they have a kooky leader in Sarah Palin....

Shortly after the constitution was written a local church had some serious concerns over the wording of the constitution namely the section on religious freedom. Luckey for them they could ask the primary Author Thomas Jefferson. This corespondence is where the phrase "seperation of Church and State" comes from or more acurately a "wall of seperation" between state and church. I don't understand people who try to interpret the constitution "for" Jefferson. When he did that quite well and inarguable for himself. The man who wrote it also claerly explained it there should be no argument the author was clear.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Separation_of_Church_and_State_in_the_United_States

From a religious website

http://www.schoolprayerinamerica.info/1separationchurchstate.html

What is there to argue about. Jeffeson Directly told the Danbury Baptists EXACTLY what he meant by

QuoteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

He meant in no uncertain terms Religion and government shall always remain seperate.

Quote"Over a ten-year period, political science professors at the University of Houston analyzed over 15,000 writings and speeches by the Founding Fathers to determine the primary source of ideas behind the Constitution. The three most quoted sources were the French philosopher Charles Montesquieu, English jurist William Blackstone and English philosopher John Locke. But the Bible was quoted more than any of these: four times more than Montesquieu, six times more than Locke and twelve times more than Blackstone. Ninety-four percent of the Founding Father's quotes were quoted, either directly or indirectly, from the Bible". Source: Lillback, Peter; Wall of Misconception, pgs. 30-31, (2007), Providence Forum Press.

http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2010/ ... erson.html (http://treesforlunch.blogspot.com/2010/07/on-jesus-and-jefferson.html)

I think it is clear that this nation was founded on Biblical principals as well as the enlightenment.  The Bible had a large role in influencing Laws and Principles of this nation but given the horrors of religious oppression in Europe that caused many to immigrate to this nation it was wise to separate Church and State.  Even Jesus talks of this when saying “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar.. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Render_unto_Caesar..).

also mentioned in the above link:

QuoteSeparation of church and state

Jesus responds to Pontius Pilate about the nature of his kingdom: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36); i.e., his religious teachings were separate from earthly political activity. This reflects a traditional division in Christian thought by which state and church have separate spheres of influence.

In summation it is important to remember how the enlightenment was certainly an influence but the Bible supported the need to insure a secular state so we have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.

Quote from: "Argie"deekayfry, I´m from Argentina.  Here, it is written in our constitution, and it hasn´t changed since 1863 despite several reformes and ammendments, that "the federal government supports (or sustains) the Roman Catholic Apostolic Church".

Thank you, Argie. I did not know this.  I do know Argentina has a very rich history.

Quote from: "freeservant""

In summation it is important to remember how the enlightenment was certainly an influence but the Bible supported the need to insure a secular state so we have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.

There is case history that clearly states that we indeed do have freedom OF religion.  We also have freedom FROM religion.

This is most specifically and recently affirmed in Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet, 512 U.S. 687 (1994)

Quotegovernment should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion." "There is more than a fine line between the voluntary association that leads to a political community comprising people who share a common religious faith, and the forced separation that occurs when the government draws explicit political boundaries on the basis of peoples' faith. In creating the district in question, New York crossed that line

- Justice David Souter writing in the majority opinion

Quote from: "freeservant"In summation it is important to remember how the enlightenment was certainly an influence but the Bible supported the need to insure a secular state so we have freedom of religion and not freedom from religion.

Then you support our apparently god given right to have freedom of religion? You understand that gives people the right to choose who and how they worship right? That Atheist's "choice" is since no god exists worshiping one would be useless?

So since we "choose" no one and worship in no way you support that right?.

Quote from: "freeservant"I think it is clear that this nation was founded on Biblical principals

Clear as mud if you ask me.

Quote from: "freeservant"

Quote from: "treesforlunch blog""Over a ten-year period, political science professors at the University of Houston analyzed over 15,000 writings and speeches by the Founding Fathers to determine the primary source of ideas behind the Constitution. The three most quoted sources were the French philosopher Charles Montesquieu, English jurist William Blackstone and English philosopher John Locke. But the Bible was quoted more than any of these: four times more than Montesquieu, six times more than Locke and twelve times more than Blackstone. Ninety-four percent of the Founding Father's quotes were quoted, either directly or indirectly, from the Bible". Source: Lillback, Peter; Wall of Misconception, pgs. 30-31, (2007), Providence Forum Press.

I think it is clear that this nation was founded on Biblical principals as well as the enlightenment. The Bible had a large role in influencing Laws and Principles of this nation but given the horrors of religious oppression in Europe that caused many to immigrate to this nation it was wise to separate Church and State. Even Jesus talks of this when saying “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.”

Oh my.  Please elucidate which biblical principals were used in setting up the government of the US?  There is indeed little doubt that most of those who were present at the Constitutional Convention were Christian, but to what extent their Christianity informed the Constitution is highly debatable. Separation of powers?  Montesquieu.  Consent of the governed being the basis for legitimate government? Ancient democratic principle, but during this period most clearly expounded by Locke. Neither have any precedent in the Bible.  In fact, as one of the pieces I linked to in my  previous post makes clear, the Bible, and in particular the New Testament, is anything but a revolutionary document.  The 'divine right of kings' can be said to have a biblical base:

QuoteI Peter 2:13-17:
 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
As free, and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness, but as the servants of God.
Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.

QuoteRomans 13:1-7:
 Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you.
For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.
Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

If the founding fathers of the US had been following the Bible, instead of Enlightenment philosophers, they would never have rebelled against the government of George III. I'd be interested in a breakdown of the Bible quotations by individual.  I would imagine that the more influential founding fathers of the US, the ones who actually came up with the Constitution, rather than merely voting yea or nay on it as it was framed, were more likely to be quoting philosophers of government than the Bible in their writings.  Reading from your own source (treesforbreakfast blog, perhaps in the comments section), it's clearly stated that out of the Ten Commandments, only three are incorporated into the laws of the US.

Jesus, as you pointed out, says that his kingdom is not of this world.  How you get from that to a secular state, in view of the biblical support of the divine right of kings, is something you'll have to explain a little better.  In the Bible, Jesus is king in heaven, and temporal kings rule, by the will of god, here on earth.  Where are principles of republican government such as that instituted by the Constitution to be found in the Bible?

I'm not sure that their beliefs are relevant in any way.  It is a gussied-up argument from authority, a thinly disguised hagiography, and as such ought to be rejected.

Quote from: "deekayfry"This is a topic that I have found interesting and often repeated.  I first heard of this in Presbyterian Church that our Founding Fathers were Christians and believed the US was to become a nation based on Christian principles.

Well, the operational word is "based". Based on 'values' is not quite the same as adhering to same values.

Quote from: "freeservant"

QuoteSeparation of church and state

Jesus responds to Pontius Pilate about the nature of his kingdom: “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world” (John 18:36); i.e., his religious teachings were separate from earthly political activity. This reflects a traditional division in Christian thought by which state and church have separate spheres of influence.

I am having trouble understanding how the context of John 18:36 leads to a specific conclusion as to it "reflects a tradition division in Christian thought by which state and church have separate spheres of influence."  The bible passage has no relationship to the idea, doctrine, or whatever you want to call "Separation of Church and State," either.

To say Jesus recognized and supported such a notion is laughable.  The society at that time was strongly Theocratic.  Jesus was anything but against separating religion from government.

BTW, the context of "render unto Ceaser" does not support the separation of church and state, either.

I am sorry  I am scratching my head over both statements.  Can you enlighten me as to how both relates to what we discuss?

I would like to mention that the information cited by Lillback in his book Wall of Misconception, is a direct quote from another book.  The source cited by Dr Lillback is Moore, David T. ; Five Lives of the Century, pgs. 9-10, (1995), Tyndale House Publishing.  A cursory search utilizing a common search engine would reveal that this study has been out there for awhile and this information is available online at a few different sites.

Insofar as the influence of Christianity upon the formation of the early government o the United States, in my blog entry I mention early church covenants and how they afffected our model of government and I invite anyone to check it out and post your replies.  Here's a relevant link : http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24202 (http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/24202)

Thanks for the mention on this forum

JD Curtis

http://www.treesforlunch.blogspot.com (http://www.treesforlunch.blogspot.com)

Freeservant, have you ever heard of the Treaty of Tripoli?

Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli says, and I quote,

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,â€"as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,â€"and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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."

Thomas Jefferson himself said:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

This country was founded in order to get away from the tyrannical King George of Brittain, and his way Chruch of England. The fact that the First Amendment gives of freedom to believe, or not believe, as we choose, goes along way to showing that we are a secular country, not founded on Christian beliefs, but common sense. It is when people decide that religion was the motorvator that I become truly afraid for where our country is heading.

Sources:
http://www.free2pray.info/1separationchurchstate.html (http://www.free2pray.info/1separationchurchstate.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli)

The circumstances of our founding are irrelevant. I don't really care what George Washington, or Tom Jefferson, or whomever, believed.

"Freeservant, have you ever heard of the Treaty of Tripoli?"

Gaytheist, have you ever heard of the Treaty Of Paris?  It is a much more important historical document and I know you won't mind quoting the beginning of it for us here.

Insofar as the Treaty of Tripoi is concerned...

1) Was this treaty ratified when the US was a fledgling nation and thus negotiating from a position of weakness?


2) In 1805 when Commander William Eaton was ready to overthrow the pasha of Tripli with a force he had raised and the treaty was renegotiated, was there language included in the reworked treaty about the US not being in any way Christian?

Thank you JD for your invitation to read the article.  Are you the author of the article?

I have a few questions.

Quotethe biblical concept of covenant became the foundation for America’s Constitution. While this history is now an almost unknown, sub rosa embarrassment to modern eyes

By what consensus?  I am not embarrassed if this were the case, but trying to relate compacts, charters, and covenants that precedes the Constitution by 150 years is a stretch.  Second, the Constitution has no references to God or any supreme being and it specifically forbids any requirements for any public agent to be religious to hold an office,

 

Quotebut no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

I do not need to quote the First Amendment again, actually I will quote it again...

QuoteCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

All the "Covenants" cited in the article run completely counter to this,

For example,  I highlight clauses that clearly show establishment

QuoteThe Covenant of the Charles-Boston Church (1630)

In the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in Obedience to his holy Will and Divine Ordinance, We whose Names are here under written, being by his most wise and good providence brought together into this part of America in the Bay of Massachusetts, and desirous to unite ourselves into one Congregation or Church under the Lord Jesus Christ our Head, in such sort as becometh all those whom he hath redeemed, and sanctified to himself, DO hereby solemnly and religiously (as in his most holy Presence) promise and bind ourselves, to walk in all our ways according to the Rule of the Gospel, and in all sincere Conformity to his holy Ordinances, and in mutual Love and Respect each to other, so near as God shall give us Grace.

Where is the relationship between the Charles Boston Church's covenant to the Constitution, and how does the CBCC overtly religious establishment transform into a clearly religious neutral document?  Finally, more relevant to the topic discussion, where is the connection between the CBCC to the Founding Father's intent of creating a Christian Nation?

Again as stated in the article,

QuoteThe shrill demand for a wholly secular government in America has never been stronger.

By what consensus?  Actually, as much as I can tell it is quite the polar opposite.  I sense there is a ground swell of opinion that push for the vastly misleading objective that our Founding Fathers, wholeheartedly wanted a Christian Nation.

Here is where I agree.  Yes, the VERY, VERY early 17th Century colonial America was undoubtedly Christian focused, as in super, hyper Christian focused.  It is without question that "Pilgrims" (the word is a very bad misnomer but that is a topic for another discussion), it is without question that they were running from persecution, which ironically when they got here they simply practiced the very same thing they ran from. The MORE things CHANGE, the MORE they STAY THE SAME.

I have no doubt that Christian and religious philosophy's, attitudes, understandings, etc. shaped thoughts that our Founding Father's had.  I will say that there are very weak relationships between the covenants and the Constitution, but the relationship is structural and procedural, as in they are related as legal contracts, but not in in substance.

I would only like to add that one can make a distinct difference between the founding of the "government" of the United States and the actual founding of the nation.

Given that the first permanent English settlers of this country actually did wade ashore (after three days of repentence and self examination) in Virginia in the year 1607, plant a large wooden cross and paraphrasing the Gospel of Matthew 15:13, stated "Every plantation, which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” then it becomes clear that this nation was founded by Christians and dedicated to God.

To argue otherwise, one would have to take the matter up with the US National Park Service. Link: http://www.nps.gov/came/index.htm (http://www.nps.gov/came/index.htm)

Quote from: "JD Curtis"Insofar as the Treaty of Tripoi is concerned...

1) Was this treaty ratified when the US was a fledgling nation and thus negotiating from a position of weakness?


2) In 1805 when Commander William Eaton was ready to overthrow the pasha of Tripli with a force he had raised and the treaty was renegotiated, was there language included in the reworked treaty about the US not being in any way Christian?

What exactly is a "a Christian nation" suppose to mean anyways? No one ever explains it. Certainly they cannot be so ignorant as to imply the government was not intended to be secular.

Now are you trying to get at the Arabic version of the Treaty of Tripoli?

Quote from: "Ed Buckner, Ph.D."[T]he controversy about the Arabic version is irrelevant here: all official treaty collections from 1797 on contain the English version, and all include the famous words of Article XI.

There was a unanimous vote.

Quote from: "JD Curtis"I would only like to add that one can make a distinct difference between the founding of the "government" of the United States and the actual founding of the nation.

Given that the first permanent English settlers of this country actually did wade ashore (after three days of repentence and self examination) in Virginia in the year 1607, plant a large wooden cross and paraphrasing the Gospel of Matthew 15:13, stated "Every plantation, which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” then it becomes clear that this nation was founded by Christians and dedicated to God.

To argue otherwise, one would have to take the matter up with the US National Park Service. Link: http://www.nps.gov/came/index.htm (http://www.nps.gov/came/index.htm)

Interesting, but we will have to agree to disagree about the relevance of this fact of the actions of the members of a single colony.  It seems, from your first sentence above, that you credit your concept of "nation" over the actual government of the country.  You seem to be implying that the actions of a handful of religious devotees, because such actions as you describe above occurred sequentially before the founding of the Constitutional government of the United States, somehow trump all the agreements that came after during the actual founding of the US government.  If you so argue, you will have to take up the matter with the US Government (not to mention the State government where you reside).  

I can't help but wonder on what specifically your concept of "nation" is based, particularly since at the time such colonies were owned by the British government.  How could we have a separate nation and yet be under the rule of the British?  How did the actions of these colonists invalidate the rule of the British government in order to create a separate nation, prior to the actual rebellion of the colonies? And if they did, why could not the subsequent actions of the representatives of all 13 of the colonies not invalidate the actions of their predecessors?  What do you mean by "nation," then?  If you mean by that the cultural entity created by those who first arrive and claim an area, you will have several arguments to sort out with the Native American tribes that preceeded the English settlers by a fair amount of time.

Quote from: "JD Curtis"I would only like to add that one can make a distinct difference between the founding of the "government" of the United States and the actual founding of the nation.

Given that the first permanent English settlers of this country actually did wade ashore (after three days of repentence and self examination) in Virginia in the year 1607, plant a large wooden cross and paraphrasing the Gospel of Matthew 15:13, stated "Every plantation, which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” then it becomes clear that this nation was founded by Christians and dedicated to God.

To argue otherwise, one would have to take the matter up with the US National Park Service. Link: http://www.nps.gov/came/index.htm (http://www.nps.gov/came/index.htm)

Again, appealing to the Founding Fathers is an Argument from Authority.  You have yet to show why any of us should care what they believed.

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Again, appealing to the Founding Fathers is an Argument from Authority. You have yet to show why any of us should care what they believed.

Because that's the question being discussed in this thread...

Quote from: "deekayfry"What do you all think?  What have you heard?  Did our Founding Fathers really intend to find a Christian Nation or more broadly a Religious Nation?  Were they influenced by history coming from Britain that had a State Religion?

...which JDC also seems to have forgotten.

Hello, and welcome to HAF, JD Curtis.

Quote from: "JD Curtis"...have you ever heard of the Treaty Of Paris?  It is a much more important historical document...

Which Treaty of Paris might that be, and in what way is the particular treaty to which you might be referring relevant to this discussion?

Treaty of Paris 1763 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281763%29)?

Treaty of Paris 1783 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281783%29)?

Treaty of Paris 1856 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281856%29)?

Treaty of Paris 1898 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%281898%29)?

To name a few (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Paris_%28disambiguation%29).

My guess is that you are referring to that of 1783, and the fact that the said document begins with reference to "the most holy and undivided Trinity."  It was fairly common to invoke the "Trinity" in the beginning of important treaties during that era.  Does that mean that the signatories of said treaties were theocracies, or even religiously based nations?  I think that it was merely a means of showing in a time-honored way that the signatories were serious. It does not mean that the US considered itself a Christian state as such. The 1783 treaty also  makes reference to George III, who is "by grace of God, king..."  Apparently the fact that George's power was given him by the grace of God was not important enough to stop the rebellion.  I wonder why that was?

Quote from: "JD Curtis"Insofar as the Treaty of Tripoi is concerned...

1) Was this treaty ratified when the US was a fledgling nation and thus negotiating from a position of weakness?


2) In 1805 when Commander William Eaton was ready to overthrow the pasha of Tripli with a force he had raised and the treaty was renegotiated, was there language included in the reworked treaty about the US not being in any way Christian?

1) Are you trying to suggest that the government of the early US considered itself a Christian state, but chose to lie about it because it was "negotiating from a position of weakness?"  If not, what is your point here?

2)The fact that the government of the US had no form of religious dispute with the government of Tripoli was reaffirmed in the 1805 version of the treaty.  See Article 14 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/bar1805t.asp).

Quote from: "JD Curtis"I would only like to add that one can make a distinct difference between the founding of the "government" of the United States and the actual founding of the nation.

Founding a colony is not founding a nation.  Even several colonies do not constitute a nation. I would suggest that there was no (non-Amerindian) nation on what is now the east coast of the US until the various colonies were forged into a nation during the war of rebellion against Britain.  Before that war began, there were various groups of varying loyalties.  Many of the people who eventually became members of the nation of Americans did not have any particular feeling of belonging to a nation beyond perhaps a vague sense of being a subject of King George.  It was during the war that the identity of "American" came into being, in the sense of a feeling of nationhood, and loyalty to that nation.  (Before that, "American" merely referred to a geographical designation, much as we today refer to "European."  There are many nations in Europe, even more nations than there are states, but no "nation of Europe.") The government which resulted from the founding of the nation was specifically, and for good reason, a secular government.  The nation which was born during the war was, although comprised largely of Christians, a secular nation.  In other words, the war was not fought for religious reasons, and thus the nation born of that war was not particularly religious in nature.

Just for the heck of it:

Vive la France!

Quote from: "JD Curtis"I would only like to add that one can make a distinct difference between the founding of the "government" of the United States and the actual founding of the nation.

Given that the first permanent English settlers of this country actually did wade ashore (after three days of repentence and self examination) in Virginia in the year 1607, plant a large wooden cross and paraphrasing the Gospel of Matthew 15:13, stated "Every plantation, which my Heavenly Father hath not planted, shall be rooted up.” then it becomes clear that this nation was founded by Christians and dedicated to God.

To argue otherwise, one would have to take the matter up with the US National Park Service. Link: http://www.nps.gov/came/index.htm (http://www.nps.gov/came/index.htm)

Or could argue that it was founded by Native Americans who were later mercilessly taken over by greedy Christians....

Quote from: "elliebean"

Quote from: "Thumpalumpacus"Again, appealing to the Founding Fathers is an Argument from Authority. You have yet to show why any of us should care what they believed.

Because that's the question being discussed in this thread...

Yes.  I'm pointing out the lack of support for his position.

I think should be blatantly obvious to every Christian that the United States is not a Christian nation, at least not in the sense of it being a new Israel.

John 18:36 disproves any notion of this:
Jesus said, "My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place."

As other people have said, the violent nature of our history also disproves the idea of a Christian nation.  Paraphrasing one pastor: "Did the US become a Christian nation before or after the slaughter of millions of Native Americans?  Before or after we held millions of African Americans as slaves?"

John 18:10-11:
10Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest's servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant's name was Malchus.)

11Jesus commanded Peter, "Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?"

Edit: Forgot to mention that the CIA used to kidnap people (usually terror suspects.)  I don't know if they're still doing it.

double post

Not to mention "render unto Caesar" and all that stuff.

Quote from: "Recusant"the war of rebellion against Britain.  

Gotta say I love the English persective on that war.  In High School we were lucky enough to watch an English documentary on the American Revolution AKA the War of Independence. Very enlightening on the british view of that period of hitory versus our own. Sorry for the derail but I always get a smile when I see an example of it of it.

"Certainly they cannot be so ignorant as to imply the government was not intended to be secular"

Sophus: I would say that the government being separate from any religious institution would be a good thing.  However I also think that there should be cordial, rather than antagonistic attitudes toward one another.


" You seem to be implying that the actions of a handful of religious devotees, because such actions as you describe above occurred sequentially before the founding of the Constitutional government of the United States, somehow trump all the agreements that came after during the actual founding of the US government."

Black Jester:  What agreements are you referring to? I was merely stating the historical fact that in 1605, men and  who were to become the first, permanent English settlement in the New World came ashore on Cape Henry, VIrginia, planted a rough hewn wooden cross (Not a cresent, Star of David or representation of Brahma) and Rev Robert Hunt declared in covenental language   “…from these very shores the Gospel shall go forth to not only this New World, but the entire world.”

"Did our Founding Fathers really intend to find a Christian Nation or more broadly a Religious Nation? Were they influenced by history coming from Britain that had a State Religion?'

No.  And I think that is the best interpretation of the First Amendment.  Given the paltry church attendence figures in the countries of Scandinavia an the C of E on any given weekend, it appears the the Founding Fathers got it right.

"the said document begins with reference to "the most holy and undivided Trinity."


It does Recusant and I bet  that it gives chest pains to those who unquestioningly accept that signatory Benjamin Franklin was unquestioningly a Deist.

"Are you trying to suggest that the government of the early US considered itself a Christian state, but chose to lie about it because it was "negotiating from a position of weakness?" If not, what is your point here?"

In negotiating from a position of weakness, the fledgling nation had to accept whatever terms were offered being that their navy/armed forces were practically non-existant.  It was clear that Muslim pirates were attacking shipping from Christian countries (in part) due to the fact they were considered "infidels".

JD Curtis, you need to learn how to use the quote tags...it's very easy to learn and makes it a ton easier for people to follow what you are saying and who you are replying to.

you can find a link to the tutorial under "Quotes" in the forum rules: viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1522 (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1522)

It looks like you might also need to be citing your sources...hard to tell since I can't make much sense of your last post without the quote tags.

Thanks.

Quote from: "JD Curtis"I bet that it gives chest pains to those who unquestioningly accept that signatory Benjamin Franklin was unquestioningly a Deist.

Franklin's thoughts on religion reveal a character who is not easily categorized.  He has been claimed by atheist and Christian alike.  Myself, I think he believed in a version of the 'God of Spinoza.'  In other words, yes, basically a deist, but with his own personal take on the subject.

  Franklin was a consummate diplomat.  He knew that using the proper, accepted formula in the treaty would give it the gravitas which was required. Beginning an important treaty with a reference to "the Trinity" was an accepted  standard practice of the time. (Read the beginning of the Treaty of Paris 1763 (http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/paris763.asp) for an example.) It's that simple. Franklin's (nor any other individual's) personal beliefs, quite rightly, did not enter into it.

Quote from: "JD Curtis"In negotiating from a position of weakness, the fledgling nation had to accept whatever terms were offered being that their navy/armed forces were practically non-existant. It was clear that Muslim pirates were attacking shipping from Christian countries (in part) due to the fact they were considered "infidels".

The treaty was written by the US; it was offering terms to Tripoli, not the other way around.
 All non-Muslims are considered infidels. Why would the pirates have any more respect for an infidel country that is not Christian?  In fact, I think that as far as Islam is concerned, if you're not "People of the Book," you're even lower down on the totem pole.
 The pirates were taking advantage of targets of opportunity: The shipping of any nation which had not paid tribute was liable to be attacked (http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/The_Great_Republic_By_the_Master_Historians_Vol_II/1801warw_je.html); why should they worry what variety of infidel shipping they are attacking, as long as they could get away with it?  So, Christian or generic infidel, it doesn't matter.  Thus, implying that the US hoped it's shipping would escape attack by declaring itself not a Christian nation is a non-starter. I would suggest to you that the "not a Christian nation" wording was included as a means of reassuring Tripoli that the US bore no religiously motivated ill-will. It was an honest statement of the secular nature of the government of the US. That sentiment was, as I made clear in my last post, echoed in the 1805 treaty, which was written when the US was not "negotiating from a position of weakness."  You failed entirely to address that issue.

Quote from: "JD Curtis""Certainly they cannot be so ignorant as to imply the government was not intended to be secular"

Sophus: I would say that the government being separate from any religious institution would be a good thing.  However I also think that there should be cordial, rather than antagonistic attitudes toward one another.

I have not experienced any antagonism.  I have not seen it on the HAF, either from theist or atheist.  There will be general antagonism from individuals who thrive on such attitudes, but this is true for any polarizing issue.

QuoteBlack Jester:  What agreements are you referring to? I was merely stating the historical fact that in 1605, men and  who were to become the first, permanent English settlement in the New World came ashore on Cape Henry, VIrginia, planted a rough hewn wooden cross (Not a cresent, Star of David or representation of Brahma) and Rev Robert Hunt declared in covenental language   “…from these very shores the Gospel shall go forth to not only this New World, but the entire world.”

We never disputed that the settlers were anything but Christian.  Nor did we dispute that earlier settlers fully intended for the New World to be Christian.  I highlight your given examples of the lack of other religious symbols for two reasons.  One, giving such examples this out was irrelevant and unnecessary.  You simply did not need to bolster the FACT that the early settlers were Christian. We all reasonably agree on this. Two, it makes me uncomfortable as it appears sarcastic and disrespectful.

Quote

Quote"Did our Founding Fathers really intend to find a Christian Nation or more broadly a Religious Nation? Were they influenced by history coming from Britain that had a State Religion?'

No.  And I think that is the best interpretation of the First Amendment.  Given the paltry church attendence figures in the countries of Scandinavia an the C of E on any given weekend, it appears the the Founding Fathers got it right.

Again, my originally stated question leads to the First Amendment, but I never asked the question as an intention to be an interpretation of the First Amendment.  What does the Scandinavia church attendance figures have to do with our discussion?  What is C of E on any weekend?  What did the Founding Fathers get right?

Quote"the said document begins with reference to "the most holy and undivided Trinity."
It does Recusant and I bet  that it gives chest pains to those who unquestioningly accept that signatory Benjamin Franklin was unquestioningly a Deist.

You are right, there are legal documents with religious references in them.  Some of them may have been a formality.  Some of them may have intended to push the nation to Christianity.

I speak for myself on this, but I don't get chest pains or any other physiological reaction knowing that Ben Franklin signed documents with religious references.  Pardon the pun, but quite Frankly, I don't care.

Quote

Quote"Are you trying to suggest that the government of the early US considered itself a Christian state, but chose to lie about it because it was "negotiating from a position of weakness?" If not, what is your point here?"

In negotiating from a position of weakness, the fledgling nation had to accept whatever terms were offered being that their navy/armed forces were practically non-existant.  It was clear that Muslim pirates were attacking shipping from Christian countries (in part) due to the fact they were considered "infidels"

No, the pirates were attacking everyone, holding hostages, and demanding ransom.  Their policy was that they were at war with those who did not have a peace treaty and with that a sum of money.

Read the wiki article it addresses thoughts on Article 11, and it cites actual archive records in relation to this (ie it was read aloud in the Senate, a copy of the Treaty was given to all the Senators, and they were given a chance to debate it, etc.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli

Quote from: "JD Curtis"I was merely stating the historical fact that in 1605, men and who were to become the first, permanent English settlement in the New World came ashore on Cape Henry, VIrginia, planted a rough hewn wooden cross (Not a cresent, Star of David or representation of Brahma) and Rev Robert Hunt declared in covenental language “…from these very shores the Gospel shall go forth to not only this New World, but the entire world.”

And I guess I was merely asking, "So what?"

Quote from: "JD Curtis"Sophus: I would say that the government being separate from any religious institution would be a good thing. However I also think that there should be cordial, rather than antagonistic attitudes toward one another.

I wasn't being antagonistic. Merely asking a question, which you haven't answered yet. What is a Christian Nation? Depending upon how you define it there's a chance that we'll, or at least myself anyways, agree with you.

Quote from: "JD Curtis""Certainly they cannot be so ignorant as to imply the government was not intended to be secular"

Sophus: I would say that the government being separate from any religious institution would be a good thing.  However I also think that there should be cordial, rather than antagonistic attitudes toward one another.


" You seem to be implying that the actions of a handful of religious devotees, because such actions as you describe above occurred sequentially before the founding of the Constitutional government of the United States, somehow trump all the agreements that came after during the actual founding of the US government."

Black Jester:  What agreements are you referring to? I was merely stating the historical fact that in 1605, men and  who were to become the first, permanent English settlement in the New World came ashore on Cape Henry, VIrginia, planted a rough hewn wooden cross (Not a cresent, Star of David or representation of Brahma) and Rev Robert Hunt declared in covenental language   “…from these very shores the Gospel shall go forth to not only this New World, but the entire world.”

"Did our Founding Fathers really intend to find a Christian Nation or more broadly a Religious Nation? Were they influenced by history coming from Britain that had a State Religion?'

No.  And I think that is the best interpretation of the First Amendment.  Given the paltry church attendence figures in the countries of Scandinavia an the C of E on any given weekend, it appears the the Founding Fathers got it right.

"the said document begins with reference to "the most holy and undivided Trinity."


It does Recusant and I bet  that it gives chest pains to those who unquestioningly accept that signatory Benjamin Franklin was unquestioningly a Deist.

"Are you trying to suggest that the government of the early US considered itself a Christian state, but chose to lie about it because it was "negotiating from a position of weakness?" If not, what is your point here?"

In negotiating from a position of weakness, the fledgling nation had to accept whatever terms were offered being that their navy/armed forces were practically non-existant.  It was clear that Muslim pirates were attacking shipping from Christian countries (in part) due to the fact they were considered "infidels".

You have yet to show why anyone should actually care what these gentlemen thought back then.  After all, we are 390 years beyond Jamestown, and almost 235 beyond the Declaration.

This is still an Argument from Authority.  As such, it is fallacious.

Do you know what?

I really do enjoy dialoging with the members here.  They are much more representative of the non-bomb throwings members of the atheist community in which something close to actual dialog can really be established.

I would have to play around with the finer inticracies of this particular message board sytem in order to use it more effectively but the fact is I hate it.  I'm much more acustomed to Blogger and thus I'm P.O.ed at this commenting process.

But anyway, might others like to throw out a specific question in this forum and I'll try to address it?  I don't mind at all.  Just think of a question (singular), post it and I'll get to it in my own sweet time.

In brief, I have a BA in Political Science (w/Criminal Justice concentration) from a state university (with grades that arent exactly remarkable BTW) and I have a decidedly Christian worldview.  I find such subject matter to be interesting and I have learned far more after graduation than before it.

PS. I would only add that when I mentioned that there should be a cordial rather than antagonistic relationship between church and state, I was speaking in general terms, not to anybody in this particular forum.

Cheers,

JD Curtis

www.treesforlunch.blogspot.com (http://www.treesforlunch.blogspot.com)

It's cool that you don't shove your stuff down my throat, and your warm regards are returned.

Regarding your post-script, however, I don't think the two entities should have any relationship, outside of taxation.

Quote from: "JD Curtis"Do you know what?

I really do enjoy dialoging with the members here.  They are much more representative of the non-bomb throwings members of the atheist community in which something close to actual dialog can really be established.

I would have to play around with the finer inticracies of this particular message board sytem in order to use it more effectively but the fact is I hate it.  I'm much more acustomed to Blogger and thus I'm P.O.ed at this commenting process.

But anyway, might others like to throw out a specific question in this forum and I'll try to address it?  I don't mind at all.  Just think of a question (singular), post it and I'll get to it in my own sweet time.

In brief, I have a BA in Political Science (w/Criminal Justice concentration) from a state university (with grades that arent exactly remarkable BTW) and I have a decidedly Christian worldview.  I find such subject matter to be interesting and I have learned far more after graduation than before it.

PS. I would only add that when I mentioned that there should be a cordial rather than antagonistic relationship between church and state, I was speaking in general terms, not to anybody in this particular forum.

Cheers,

JD Curtis

http://www.treesforlunch.blogspot.com (http://www.treesforlunch.blogspot.com)

It would be equally good if you would like to ask questions as well. I'd be happy to do my best to clarify my world view if you wanted. It may be a little different from that which you are used to being British (English).

I have been a bit busy lately and I hope to post something soon.  In the meantime, I notice that Dr. Peter Lillback (who wrote the book that got this discussion started) has started a new thread on the Providence Forum's blog.  It's a subject that I know is near and dear to the hearts of both atheists and Christians alike.  That of the question, "Is Religion Necessary for Morality?"  Link: http://www.providenceforum.org/default. ... eid=109785 (http://www.providenceforum.org/default.aspx?p=57363&beid=109785)

He ties the beliefs of the Founding Fathers in with it as well.  Enjoy!

JD Curtis, what is a Christian Nation?

And as for this....

QuoteBut if atheism itself is actually folly as Psalm 14:1 says, "The fool has said in his heart, there is no God," then instead of loving his neighbor, the atheist is causing his neighbor to face eternity in rebellious unbelief before his creator. So, theologically, there can be no morality without religion.

Seriously? In this case the atheist Erich Fromm and great philosopher of love, who called it his life's purpose, is immoral. There you have it. Love is immoral without faith in a sky daddy. Or is this merely to say we are fools incapable of love?

What one does makes a man immoral or moral, not what one believes. This is essentially a prejudice. (I'll admit beliefs can be intentions to do immoral things, but until you act on it or try to act on it you haven't really done anything.)

Honestly, the idea that religions are founts of morality flies in the face of history.

Also, the Euthyphro Dilemma.

"Love is immoral without faith in a sky daddy"

Lillback was speaking in theological terms Sophus.  Perhaps there can be a distinction made between someone "causing his neighbor to face eternity in rebellious unbelief before his creator" and  "Love is immoral without faith in a sky daddy"?

"the idea that religions are founts of morality flies in the face of history'

I think that there could be a viable case made to support this assertion Thumpalumpacus . However, I would not lump all religions in together as that could create a highly skewed picture as a result.

Quote from: "JD Curtis"""the idea that religions are founts of morality flies in the face of history'

I think that there could be a viable case made to support this assertion Thumpalumpacus . However, I would not lump all religions in together as that could create a highly skewed picture as a result.

Indeed, which is why I used general terms.  Some decent morality has come from religions; and also some hideous injustice, which I'm sure we would agree is one form of immorality: using power to oppress the powerless.

Given this ambiguity, the idea that morality is sourced in faith -- which is a very common idea here in America -- is, at best, overstepping one's evidence, and, at worst, biased argumentation best nipped in the bud, lest unquestioned assumptions lead to further injustice.

Quote from: "JD Curtis"Lillback was speaking in theological terms Sophus. Perhaps there can be a distinction made between someone "causing his neighbor to face eternity in rebellious unbelief before his creator" and "Love is immoral without faith in a sky daddy"?

Yes, theological terms as in 'according to this theology all heathens are immoral,' not as in 'the belief in a different theology or none at all is immoral.' He is stating that morality as a whole cannot exist without religion. The title should speak for itself, "Is Religion Necessary for Morality?", but in case it doesn't he also concludes that it is his presented theology alongside two other reasons (the founding fathers and political science) which makes "the necessity of religion for morality".
Another point - not a few number of atheists avoid trying to "convert" anyone of a faith.

As for the John Adams quote that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people," John Adams' words are not law. John Adams was not the only founding father. The Constitution was made to protect religious freedoms (that includes those with lack of religious belief). That one particular issue was huge to Americans at the time. Yet if all non-believer are immoral* that would imply that the very man who wrote the Constitution, and worked alongside Adams, was immoral. Thomas Jefferson was a deist who has said quite the number of ugly things about Christianity.

* - What, any religious person is moral but one who has no religion can't be?

As for non-Christians being "rebellious"... how so? Most of your people who do not subsribe to the Christian faith conform to another faith. And I hardly doubt you consider yourself to be rebellious against virtually religions' dead gods like Zeus or Anubis. How can you rebel against a fictional character?

And I haven't had much luck with this next question but perhaps if I put it in big bold red letters it won't be ignored this time...  

What is a Christian Nation?

Quote from: "JD Curtis"Do you know what?

I really do enjoy dialoging with the members here.  They are much more representative of the non-bomb throwings members of the atheist community in which something close to actual dialog can really be established.

I am a new member, and I agree.  People here are very civil and respecful.

QuoteI would have to play around with the finer inticracies of this particular message board sytem in order to use it more effectively but the fact is I hate it.  I'm much more acustomed to Blogger and thus I'm P.O.ed at this commenting process.

I have trouble with MB's in general, too.  I grew up in the much, much older internet with AOL (yikes!) and IRC.

QuoteBut anyway, might others like to throw out a specific question in this forum and I'll try to address it?  I don't mind at all.  Just think of a question (singular), post it and I'll get to it in my own sweet time.

None at this very instance.  I had a few earlier.  They are still open.  If you can get to them that's fine, if you cannot that's fine, too.  I won't lose any sleep :(

QuotePS. I would only add that when I mentioned that there should be a cordial rather than antagonistic relationship between church and state, I was speaking in general terms, not to anybody in this particular forum.

I see what you are saying.  Now that I think about it, Chruch vs. State has been with rather divisive with a lot of pent up frustration on both sides.

Also, JD, the article you posted is very interesting.  Your viewpoint has broadened my thinking on the historical aspects of religion and the New World.

I was ignorant of the prior history to the Birth of the United State.  As such, your mention of it has me reading up on it quite a bit.  Thanks for that insight.


BTW, the laid back lounge is good place hang out and is a refuge from the intellectual exercises we engage in from time to time

Sophus, I don't speak for Dr Lillback.  He has a blog.  Might I suggest that you formulate your thoughts on the matter and post something there?  You never know. Maybe he will answer it for you.

"Thomas Jefferson was a deist who has said quite the number of ugly things about Christianity"

Sophus, I would request that you go to my blog and check out the entries entitled "On Jesus and Jefferson parts 1-3" and then get back to me.  Whenever you can get around to it.

"What is a Christian Nation?"

In the 4 pages of comments, did I make the statement, "America is a Christian nation"?  If I did, point it out to me and I'll examine the context that I stated it.  I don't recall that I actually did though.

"I was ignorant of the prior history to the Birth of the United State. As such, your mention of it has me reading up on it quite a bit. Thanks for that insight."

I very much appreciate this comment deekayfry.  I stumbled across an article today in which a judge ordered a sheriff to attend a course on the constitution because he obviously didnt understand it.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/articl ... gun-permit (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20100709/NEWS10/7090348/Judge-rips-sheriff-for-rejecting-gun-permit)

It seems there are a lot of people who believe that America was founded as a Christian nation.  What do you think?

Welcome to the forum!  We actually have a thread that's currently active about this very topic - http://happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=5278.

Quote from: "JD Curtis"In the 4 pages of comments, did I make the statement, "America is a Christian nation"?  If I did, point it out to me and I'll examine the context that I stated it.  I don't recall that I actually did though.

You seemed to be implying it, especially by disputing the Treaty of Tripoli. My apologies if you weren't. Are you saying you don't think it to be one?

QuoteSophus, I would request that you go to my blog and check out the entries entitled "On Jesus and Jefferson parts 1-3" and then get back to me. Whenever you can get around to it.

Certainly. What is the url to your blog?  

QuoteSophus, I don't speak for Dr Lillback. He has a blog. Might I suggest that you formulate your thoughts on the matter and post something there? You never know. Maybe he will answer it for you.

I was of the impression you agreed with and shared his views, hence the promoting of it. If your views are one in the same I see no reason why  you cannot offer a defense for them as well.

It seems there are a lot of people who believe that America was founded as a Christian nation. What do you think?

To put a finer point on it,  the founding of the United Staes was much like was a giant, church relocation project.

I think that the First Amendment was intimately tied to The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.  What were the prevailing conditions like that gave rise to The Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom? One writer put it thusly...

 "Prior to the Revolution, in 1768, Patrick Henry rode for miles on horseback to a trial in Spottsylvania county. He entered through the rear of a courtroom where three Baptist ministers were being tried for having preached without the sanction of the Episcopal Church. In the midst of the proceedings, he interrupted: "May it please your lordships, what did I hear read? Did I hear an expression that these men, whom you worships are about to try for misdemeanor, are charged with preaching the gospel of the Son of God?"

Keep in mind that this was at a time when the official religion of the state of Virginian was the Anglican church.

Even after the First Amendment was passed, some states continued to have their own state religion, like Massachusetts which remaind officailly Congregationalist until 1833.

Welcome to the forum! We actually have a thread that's currently active about this very topic

Thanks Pinko. I'll check it out sometime.

You seemed to be implying it, especially by disputing the Treaty of Tripoli. My apologies if you weren't. Are you saying you don't think it to be one?

Sophus, I don't think that it is catagorically false to say that the government of the United States was not founded upon the Christian religion. There would be morr of a mention of it in the Constitution if it were and besides.  I think that alot of the religions that were praciced freely on this side of the Atlantic were persecuted on the other side.  I don't think that they wanted any, one denomination to have an upper hand and thus, more secular wording in the the constitution.

What is the url to your blog?

http://www.treesforlunch.blogspot.com (http://www.treesforlunch.blogspot.com)

I would consider posting a question to the Providence Forum's blog.

A special shout out to Recusant who posited some interesting questions and I would like to address them soon, I've been a bit busy as of late.

The thing is, alot of this subject matter is a bit complicated and cannot be reduced to a cute, one sentence, quick sound-byte.  I think we can all agree on that.

And now on to some of Recusant's points...

Franklin's thoughts on religion reveal a character who is not easily categorized

Right.  And I would say the same about Jefferson who I think far too many people just say the word "Deist" and walk away without ever considering Unitarianism at all.  I'm not 100% sure, but I do not believe that Unitarians reject the idea of a personal God that is involved in the affairs of men.

Myself, I think he believed in a version of the 'God of Spinoza.' In other words, yes, basically a deist, but with his own personal take on the subject

In reference to Franklin this may be correct.  I really don't know though.

The treaty (of Tripoli) was written by the US; it was offering terms to Tripoli, not the other way around... Why would the pirates have any more respect for an infidel country that is not Christian? In fact, I think that as far as Islam is concerned, if you're not "People of the Book," you're even lower down on the totem pole.

One of the main reasons ships from Christian countries were being attacked is because they were from predominately Christian countries. I'm not sure how much Buddhist or Hindu shipping there was in the Med at that time as compared to that of Christian nations but feel free to provide the statistics here and I will check them out. Also...

"In 1786, Jefferson, then the American ambassador to France, and Adams, then the American ambassador to Britain, met in London with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, the "Dey of Algiers" ambassador to Britain.

The Americans wanted to negotiate a peace treaty based on Congress' vote to appease.

During the meeting Jefferson and Adams asked the Dey's ambassador why Muslims held so much hostility towards America, a nation with which they had no previous contacts.

In a later meeting with the American Congress, the two future presidents reported that Ambassador Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja had answered that Islam "was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Quran, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in Battle was sure to go to Paradise."

For the following 15 years, the American government paid the Muslims millions of dollars for the safe passage of American ships or the return of American hostages. The payments in ransom and tribute amounted to 20 percent of United States government annual revenues in 1800." Link: http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm (http://www.usvetdsp.com/jan07/jeff_quran.htm)

One thing that people forget is that between 1797 and 1799, the US was in a quasi-war with France at the time and relations with Britian werent good either as they harrased American shipping as well.

We had no Navy for all intents and purposes and yes, the United States was negotiating with Barbary pirates from a position of weakness.  This link provides some numbers on the situation and has more information than you could possibly hope for regarding that point of history. Link: http://www.history.navy.mil/biblio/biblio4/biblio4a.htm (http://www.history.navy.mil/biblio/biblio4/biblio4a.htm)

Quote from: "JD Curtis"We had no Navy for all intents and purposes and yes, the United States was negotiating with Barbary pirates from a position of weakness.

So like all good Christians they lied to benefit themselves?

Quote from: "JD Curtis"I'm not sure how much Buddhist or Hindu shipping there was in the Med at that time as compared to that of Christian nations but feel free to provide the statistics here and I will check them out.

This is disingenuous, given the fact that that the Suez Canal had yet to be built, and South Asian shipping had yet to traverse Gibraltar.  Certainly you know this.  

Additionally, you're ignoring the Arab pirates who operated in the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the wider Indian Ocean, preying on the locals, who were, I presume, largely non-Christian.

given the fact that that the Suez Canal had yet to be built, and South Asian shipping had yet to traverse Gibraltar

Might this then lend support to the theory that the vast majority of shipping attacked by Barbary pirates was on vessels flagged by nations that were predominately Christian?

you're ignoring the Arab pirates who operated in the Arabian Sea, the Persian Gulf, and the wider Indian Ocean, preying on the locals, who were, I presume, largely non-Christian

That might have been the case, but I am unaware of either Jefferson or Adams entering into negotiations and signing treaties with other nations outside of the Med in reference to such raids by Muslim pirates.  However if you are privy to such information, then I would be pleased to examine any evidence you would like to offer up on the topic.  

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond, JD Curtis. I appreciate the fact that you are dealing with multiple answers to your posts, and that you won't necessarily have time to respond to every point raised by every interlocutor.

Quote from: "JD Curtis"

Quote from: "Recusant"Franklin's thoughts on religion reveal a character who is not easily categorized.

Right.  And I would say the same about Jefferson who I think far too many people just say the word "Deist" and walk away without ever considering Unitarianism at all.  I'm not 100% sure, but I do not believe that Unitarians reject the idea of a personal God that is involved in the affairs of men.

According to one of the sites I linked to earlier, Religion and the Founding Fathers (http://www.earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm), both Franklin and Jefferson can be said to have been "Deist-Christian." I'll also include a paragraph on Unitarianism.  You're correct that Unitarians, both then and now, do not reject the idea of a personal God.

QuoteDeism - Deism has no church and no official organization, hence, it is not considered a religion. It is more a reason-based view of religion in general. Deism is sometimes referred to as a religious philosophy or a religious outlook. In general, Deism did not see Christ as the Son of God, did not believe in the Trinity, had no strong belief in miracles, and had no belief in atonement or resurrection. The Bible was not considered “sacred text” among most Deists, although most Deists were (like Franklin) Christian-friendly.

 Deism could fall into certain subcategories of Deist-Christian (i.e. Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson) and Deist non-Christian (i.e. Thomas Paine, Ethan Allen). Deist-Christians generally believed the Bible provided good lessons to live by and they attended church regularly. Deist non-Christians generally felt that Christianity was largely an impediment to growth and they did not attend church regularly.

 Unitarianism - In the 1700's, Unitarianism was an official recognized American religion. As a general rule, early American Unitarianism did not believe in the Trinity, believed the Christ was subordinate to God, and that salvation was largely through character. However, unlike Deists, Unitarianism might very well see Jesus as God’s messenger, and believe in the resurrection as well as the miracles reported in the New Testament. By the same token, reason and inquiry were highly esteemed - to the point where those features might supersede biblical teachings.

 Unitarianism was vastly different than any of the major religions practicing at that time due to the fact that it valued human reason so highly, even at the expense of Biblical authority, and because it had no belief in the Trinity. This religion had its coming-out party during the 18th-century Age of Enlightenment, and indeed, one-hundred fifty years earlier it would have likely had to operate under cover and under threat of persecution. John Adams was a Unitarian and Thomas Jefferson, although not an official Unitarian, believed it to be the best of the organized religions.

 Fitting the Deists and Unitarians into ideal separate definitions is not always a simple task since individual writings don’t always make for a convenient 21st century understanding.

The current Unitarian Universalist (http://www.uua.org/homepage/index.shtml) churches are pretty wide open in regards to acceptable beliefs:

QuoteDiverse beliefs about the existence of a higher power are welcome in Unitarian Universalist congregations. Unitarian Universalists may be Atheists, Humanists, Christians, Pagans, or identify with other theological and philosophical traditions.

Quote from: "JD Curtis"

Quote from: "Recusant"The treaty (of Tripoli) was written by the US; it was offering terms to Tripoli, not the other way around... Why would the pirates have any more respect for an infidel country that is not Christian? In fact, I think that as far as Islam is concerned, if you're not "People of the Book," you're even lower down on the totem pole.

One of the main reasons ships from Christian countries were being attacked is because they were from predominately Christian countries. I'm not sure how much Buddhist or Hindu shipping there was in the Med at that time as compared to that of Christian nations but feel free to provide the statistics here and I will check them out.

Though the common term used by historians is "Barbary Pirates," in fact they are more accurately referred to as privateers. They were essentially free to prey on the shipping of any non-Muslim country with which their base country did not have a treaty. Their motivation, like that of any privateer, was profit.  The countries from which they operated may indeed have used the excuse that they were "making war on the infidels," but as with other countries which issued privateers their "passport" or Letter of Marque, the motivation was a combination of "patriotism and profit."  I would venture to say that while the "patriotism/religion" rhetoric might have been emphasized by the leadership and ambassadors of the country, in fact the major motivator was profit. The shipping was being attacked, not because it was Christian per se, but because it was non-Muslim.(=people it was acceptable to enslave=profit)

Barbary Pirates (http://middleeast.about.com/od/b/g/barbary-pirates-glossary.htm), a brief article by Pierre Tristam.  Note that in the article, Tristam says:

QuotePrivateering had two aims: to enslave captives, who were usually Christian, and to ransom hostages for tribute.

Muslims are generally not allowed to enslave fellow Muslims, so naturally the "pirates" attacked non-Muslim shipping.  My point earlier had to do with the fact that even if the US presented itself as "not a Christian nation," it's shipping, as that of a non-Muslim nation, would still be subject to attack. So trying to avoid attack with relevant phraseology in the 1795 treaty would be futile, and the authors of the treaty knew that. In fact, according to this letter (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/23/opinion/l-barbary-privateers-889385.html) from Idriss Jazairay, the Algerian ambassador in 2003:

QuoteLike these other countries, Algiers indeed targeted the cargo ships of countries with which it was at war -- those countries, according to its policy, with which it had not signed a peace treaty. Hence the 1795 treaty.

The Barbary Pirates attacked any non-Muslim shipping of any country with which their base country did not have a treaty. What did those treaties entail?  Essentially they were tribute agreements. According to the Wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbary_corsairs):

Quote...all traders of nations which did not pay tribute for immunity were liable to be taken at sea. This tribute, disguised as presents or ransoms, did not always ensure safety. The most powerful states in Europe condescended to pay the pirates and tolerate their insults.

So even having a powerful navy and paying tribute would not ensure the complete safety of your shipping.  Thus, the "America was negotiating from a position of weakness" theory, while technically correct, is actually irrelevant. The "not a Christian nation" phraseology is not meant to ensure the safety of the shipping in lieu of payment, nor because the US did not have a powerful navy. Because once the treaty was in effect, tribute would be paid, which, it was fondly hoped, would buy the pirates off. The ambassador that you quote made a nice speech about what was written in the Quran, but the Barbary Pirates were not motivated by religion, but by profit, as is easily seen from the reality of the day.  If their motivation had truly been religious, they would not have been able (usually) to have been bought off.

Recusant. Thank you for your reply my friend.  Let us examine that which you have advanced.

The current Unitarian Universalist churches are pretty wide open in regards to acceptable beliefs

Yes, you do seem to be correct in this statement.  I would only add that this is akin to the rampant "Episcopaganism" that is now affecting the uber liberal branches of the Christian church today.  However you being an atheist, I would assume that this sort of subject matter would bore you though.

Though the common term used by historians is "Barbary Pirates," in fact they are more accurately referred to as privateers. They were essentially free to prey on the shipping of any non-Muslim country with which their base country did not have a treaty.

Which comes back to a question that I raised with Thumpalumpacus ( I get knocked down then I get up again!). I asked if "the vast majority of shipping attacked by Barbary pirates was on vessels flagged by nations that were predominately Christian?".  This would appear to be the case.  I cannot offer up any other comparative religions in this regard.

""There's a temptation to view all of our problems as unprecedented and all of our threats as new and novel," says George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley. Shortly after the terror attacks of Sept. 11, Turley advised some members of Congress who were considering a formal declaration of war against the suspected perpetrators. He invoked the precedent of the Barbary pirates, saying America had every right to attack and destroy the terrorist leadership without declaring war.

"Congress did not actually declare war on the pirates," Turley wrote in a memo, "but 'authorized' the use of force against the regencies after our bribes and ransoms were having no effect. This may have been due to an appreciation that a declaration of war on such petty tyrants would have elevated their status. Accordingly, they were treated as pirates and, after a disgraceful period of accommodation, we hunted them down as pirates."

Because of their outlaw conduct, pirates -- and modern-day terrorists -- put themselves outside protection of the law, according to military strategy expert Dave McIntyre, a former dean at the National War College. "On the high seas if you saw a pirate, you sank the bastard," he says. "You assault pirates, you don't arrest pirates."

Shoot first, ask questions later. Wanted: Dead or alive. Such is our official policy regarding Osama bin Laden, the most infamous outlaw of the era.

One of the enduring lessons of the Barbary campaigns was to never give in to outlaws, whether you call them pirates or terrorists. In the late 1700s, America paid significant blackmail for peace -- shelling out $990,000 to the Algerians alone at a time when national revenues totaled just $7 million.

"Too many concessions have been made to Algiers," U.S. consul William Eaton wrote to the Secretary of State in 1799. "There is but one language which can be held to these people, and this is terror." <a href="http://www.dojgov.net/Liberty_Watch.htm">Link</a>

I will try to address some of your other points soon. Good night!