The United States Was Established as a Christian Nation!

Friends, the U.S. may very well have a Christian majority, but it is not a Christian country. In fact, the Christian Religious Right longs for it to be accepted that America is a Christian nation. But thanks to foresighted founding fathers like Madison, Jefferson, Adams and even Roger Williams, it isn't so.

You need to carefully read the Constitution. For a quick review here is a primer:

The U.S. Constitution is a secular document and has no reference to religious roots of the U.S. It begins, "We the people," and contains no mention of "God" or "Christianity." Its only references to religion are exclusionary, such as, "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust" (Art. VI), and "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" (First Amendment). Please read brief references below:

"The senators and representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article VI, Section 3, The Constitution of the United States.)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the freedom of press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (Amendment 1, The Constitution of the United States.)

Please refer also to a treaty signed by the US where you will find the Founding Fathers did not envision the U.S. as a Christian country or religious state. The treaty was written by Joel Barlow, negotiated during Washington's administration, concluded on November 4, 1796, ratified by the Senate in June, 1797, and signed by John Adams [2nd U.S. President] on June 10,1797. Here is an excerpt from it:

Treaty of Peace and Friendship Between the United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary, 1796-1797:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion--as it has itself no character of enmity against the law, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], ..." (Article 11, Treaty of Peace and Friendship between The United States and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary," 1796-1797.)

And, now specifically for Muslims:

"Where the preamble [of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom] declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting the words "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

So, anyone who claims or believes that the U.S. is a Christian country is either misinformed or merely expressing an opinion, perhaps a wish, but not a fact.

Corinne
http://www.christianresistance.com

 

OR, I'm not at all convinced that emphasis on the individual is a good thing or necessarily Christian; it is perhaps the product of one form of Christianity, namely a somewhat extreme Protestantism. I would scarcely argue that this has had unremittingly good effects; if you are arguing that it was the prevailing influence in the formation of the US polity AND that it resulted in better treatment for blacks and Native Americans, then the evidence of the last 200 years or so shows those arguments to be fundamentally at variance.

No, individualism within Christianity springs largely from a defect within the Reformation (plus, in the US at least, a dose of Frontier Spirit). It was perhaps inevitable that the Reformation, with its (rightful) emphasis on the need for personal salvation through the individual’s faith and relationship with God, would spawn an, at times, unhealthy reliance on the Christian as individual rather than as part of the Church as a whole. Although we have to recognise that the pre-Reformation Catholic Church was not quite the monolith with a united front that some evangelicals would like to think (consider in particular the Catholic-Orthodox schism of 1054 and the split within Catholicism between Rome and Avignon 1378-1417), it is nevertheless true that in destroying the concept and ideology of a united ‘Great Church’ with universally-held and certain doctrines and uniformity of observance and worship, the Reformers created a problem for themselves and future generations of Christians: if the Catholic Church hierarchy is no longer the arbiter of doctrine, discipline and Biblical interpretation, then who is, and by what right and on what basis? Two solutions presented themselves – and still do today. The first is that it is the individual Christian who determines what is right and proper by revelation from God and by the Spirit illuminating the Bible as the Word of God. This is of course a recipe for both anarchy and heresy as well as the culture for the emergence of Godly, gifted and anointed Christians. The second solution was to set up an alternative church with its own doctrines and own hierarchy (different, of course, to that of the Catholics), which is what Luther essentially did. The second solution, however, presents a problem – who decides what form this church takes and what its doctrines are, and on what basis? So, again we are thrown back on the individual ultimately, and the second solution has large elements of the first in it.

Thus in replacing corporate objectivity which was in error with largely individual subjectivity which was equally prone to error, the Reformers created the climate for further splits within Christendom. After all, if Luther (who was he after all?) could start his own church, why couldn’t anyone else? This is, of course, the fundamental weakness of Protestantism; that any old Tom, Dick or Harry (yes, it’s usually men who are the problem here) can set up shop on his own, attract a following and declare himself to be the sole repository of all truth.

Therefore Protestantism, taken to its logical conclusion, and despite its stated reliance on the Bible as the revealed Word of God, is nevertheless dependent ultimately on individual conscience and interpretation of that Word. Thus it is fair comment to say that the individual (and his/her relationship with God) is at the heart of the Protestant creeds.

So, I would view Christian individualism as as much of a weakness as a strength

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

While the Constitution may not 'codify' Christianity as a National Religion, in fact such a thing is specifically forbidden...

It also does not prohibit the public expression of Godliness by Public Officials...

Nor, is there any intention or language requiring a purported 'Separation of Church and state'...

Except where the 'state' might try to make us a Specifically 'Christian (Baptist) Nation'...

A belief in a Divine Creator is absolutely not prohibited... Rather encouraged by a majority of our documents and, of course the entire basis of our economy, our monetary system proclaims there is a God in Whom We Trust...

Or, at least we did...

 

Once again Corrine, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when you have presumed to speak for those you disagree with.

The Christian Right has no ambitions of establishing any religion as the state religion. We do however contend that Christian values, principles, and worldviews are every bit as valid for developing gov't policy as any others.

Our nation was founded on Christian values- one of which is the sovereignty and rights of the individual as opposed to all rights being held by government. This directly relates to the principles of separation of church and state, priesthood of the believer, and soul liberty espoused by Baptists.

The overall ideal of our Constitution was that rights belong to the individual and that he is responsible before his God. Never was it imagined that the speech of religious people would be considered contrary to the Constitution simply because it was based on biblical values.

 

This is a cut and paste Job but anyone can find reliable source that will state that the country was not founded on Christian Principles!

Thomas Jefferson,

"Gouverneur Morris had often told me that General Washington believed no more of that system (Christianity) than did he himself."
-Thomas Jefferson, in his private journal, Feb. 1800

Third president and author of the Declaration of Independence, said:"I trust that there is not a young man now living in the United States who will not die a Unitarian." He referred to the Revelation of St. John as "the ravings of a maniac" and wrote:

The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ levelled to every understanding and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticisms of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from its indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power, and pre-eminence. The doctrines which flowed from the lips of Jesus himself are within the comprehension of a child; but thousands of volumes have not yet explained the Platonisms engrafted on them: and for this obvious reason that nonsense can never be explained."

Benjamin Franklin,

Delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, said:

As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the System of Morals and his Religion...has received various corrupting Changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his Divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it now, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble."

 

The data in the OP is wrong:

Many have claimed that the Supreme Court determined that the US was a Christian nation in the 1892 case (Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 226 (1892)). Unfortunately, their "analysis" amounts to little more than a manipulation of the language of the opinion to distort the actual meaning of the case.

The facts of Holy Trinity concerned the application of an Act of Congress titled "An act to prohibit the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the Unites States, its Territories and the District of Columbia." Holy Trinity Church contracted with a minister in England to serve as rector. At issue in the case was whether or not the church's action violated the Act which prohibited "any person, company, partnership, or corporation ... to assist or encourage the importation or migration of any alien ... under contract or agreement ... to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States."

The holding of Holy Trinity was based on an interpretation of the purpose of the Act. The Court concluded that the purpose of the Act was to prohibit the importation of foreign unskilled persons to perform manual labor and manual services. A christian minister, the Court reasoned, is a "toiler of the brain," not a manual laborer; Holy Trinity Church, therefore, was found not to have violated the Act when it employed a man from England.

The rationale in Holy Trinity contains several different parts. First the court discusses how it came up with the idea that the purpose of the Act was to slow down or stop the importation of cheap, unskilled manual laborers which might compete with American unskilled laborers for jobs. The Court says the title of the Act implies its meaning, that only the importation of "laborers" will be restricted. The Court then turns to the legislative history, debates, and comments of the Congressmen involved in drafting the Act to conclude that the Act was designed to regulate the domestic unskilled, labor market.

Justice Brewer then writes in the opinion that "beyond all these matters no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people." Several pages later, after presenting a religious history of America, he follows up with the statement: "These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." Many have spliced together these two quotes and falsely cites the Holy Trinity case as establishing America as a Christian Nation.

The "Christian Nation" topic was not even at issue in Holy Trinity. The actual dispute the Court had to decide had nothing at all to do with religion. Holy Trinity did not question whether the Immigration Act's purpose was "for or against religion" generally or specifically. So when Brewer begins his religious history lesson with, "no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people," he refers to no particular statute, no particular actor. He has moved outside the actual facts of this case and the statute at issue to address the vague application of general principles to law in general. His statements, therefore, create no rule of law, and provide no useful precedent for future legal disputes. Since none of the facts suggested that the clergyman was being kept out for the purpose of discriminating against religion or prohibiting religious exercise, the dictum by Brewer addresses no controversy and crafts no rule of law to be applied to other cases as precedent.

 

OldRegular,

Correct me if I'm wrong. But are you one of those Christians <snipped>If not then why would you post something so incorrect this, in fact a LIE.

NO SANE AMERICAN WOULD SAY THAT THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES IS WHAT STOP BLACK AMERICANS FROM THE NORTH GOING BACK DOWN SOUTH AND KILLING THE WHITES! IT WAS CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES THAT GOT BLACK MEN LIKE MYSELF THE RIGHT TO VOTE (MARTIN L. KING) AND DESEGREGATION (MARTIN L. KING). HE IS THE TRUE AMERICAN, NOT <inflammatory comment snipped> WHOM WERE PRESIDENT.

Ron.

[ December 10, 2004, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

OldRegular,

Correct me if I'm wrong. But are you one of those Christians <snipped per comments above>. If not then why would you post something so incorrect likr this, in fact a LIE. Are we talking about the same America?

NO SANE AMERICAN WOULD SAY THAT THIS COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.

CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES IS WHAT STOP BLACK AMERICANS FROM THE NORTH GOING BACK DOWN SOUTH AND KILLING THE WHITES! IT WAS CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES THAT GOT BLACK MEN LIKE MYSELF THE RIGHT TO VOTE (MARTIN L. KING) AND DESEGREGATION (MARTIN L. KING). HE IS THE TRUE AMERICAN, NOT <inflammatory comment snipped> WHOM WERE PRESIDENT.

Ron.

[ December 10, 2004, 04:25 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

Please note, OR, that this thread is being moderated and posts are being edited.

 

I recently left a so-called Christian forum where this sort of nonsensical response was routinely posted. I thought that when I got on a Baptist forum I would be spared this kind of "trash talk" but obviously I was wrong. </font>[/QUOTE]Oldregular,

How is it trash?

Is it incorrect?

Or is it a truth that you want to forget in order to make that false claim about America?

It was Christian principles that lead Black American to fight peacefully for our Rights under the Constitution!

It was a Black man (Martin King) and his peace that got a white President to desegregate the nation. The Black man recieved a Noble Prize for Peace, and ratified Christian principles for the world to see! It was a slap in the face to White America, because the world stated that he was right and the Government was wrong.

It was Christian values that got Black the right to vote.

And you call this trash talk. I will never let anyone Black or White tell flat out lies in the name of truth. What you posted was not true, and that is a Fact!

Ron.

 

MODERATOR NOTE:

This is being posted publicly because a new member is not reading PMs. Unjustified accusations of racism and purposefully inflammatory comments will not be tolerated. Any further examples will result in the post being deleted.

Roger
C4K
Moderator