Is America a Christian Nation?

I am an atheist, and I can wholeheartedly agree with you here. I have absolutely no problem with people basing their own personal decisions on their personal religious beliefs.As Otto Ellick put it in msg 33:

quote:

---

Laws must not be based solely on religious doctrine -- each law must have a motivation and purpose that allow it to stand on its own in the face of rational and objective scrutiny, without appeal to supernatural causation or scriptural exegesis.
(I don't know if this is from Otto or was quoted from a different source by Otto)

---

That hits the nail on the head. IMHO, this is exactly what the Declaration of Independence was speaking of. America wanted to separate itself from Divine Right rule and replace it with a government based on reason. From the DoI preamble:

quote:

---

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

​

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

---

This is speaking to the idea that one can use reason to determine a moral form of government. The reference to "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is a direct reference to Deist ideals based on such philosophers as Locke and Paine. It is a sharp departure from rule by Divine Right. No longer was "I am God's annointed" a reason for law. Reason is now the source of law.At the same time, this does not mean that laws derived from a theological view are wrong. Rather, a law is judged independently of the source.

Hey thanks. I did not know that.You replied to Taq... If you would have replied to me sperately, then I would have gotten an email notifying me of the reply. I just happened to stumble across this but I could have missed it.Just FYI.

Too often I hear people claiming they are.Its all those pop-neo-atheists that just despise religion. Like, the 20-somethings that bitch on facebook. You know, like Taz.And since you don't see the other atheists all up in arms about it, then obviously they condone and support it

1) I don't have facebook or any other online social networking account. The only thing close to any of these are my email and EvC.2) I don't despise religion. I do, however, think it impedes progress, both social and scientific.Page Not Found

quote:

---

The recent occurrence has been in the House of Representatives in Iowa. Two Republican house pepresentatives, Jason Schultz and Matt Windschitl, are co-sponsoring a bill which would exclude LGBT students from being protected under the 2007 Safe School Law which is already on the books. The reason for this is to try and reverse the decision of the Iowa Supreme Court to have a reverse on the decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

---

In other words, these 2 religious nutjobs masquerading as politicians are trying to put the LGBT students in the line of fire over this fiasco.Again, my opinion is we as a society can do a lot better without religion. People will then have to think for once in their lives why right things are right and wrong things are wrong instead of just blindly following what their pastors tell them what's right and what's wrong.3) I don't only condone what the Unholy Trinity (Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens), I agree with them almost 100%. I don't make an effort to hide this.4) If you haven't been paying attention, there are large numbers of atheists out there criticizing these three everyday. You can find lots of comments on this board from atheists criticizing Dawkins.I regularly and openly criticize organizations such as greenpeace and PETA. Whenever an atheist and evolution supporter shows up who turns out to be ignorant of the subject you can bet your arse I'm there to shout him down.5) Laws derived from theological view aren't necessarily wrong, but when they are right they are not right because of some divine reason. Your savior the late President Bush openly supported the criminalization of homosexuality. And indeed, there is little doubt that such laws in the past were theologically based.Every just law supposedly derived from theological view can be justified using secular logic. This is a point that Dawkins, Hitchens, and Harris have been pointing out for years. Modern society at large don't get its morals from religion. Otherwise, we'd still be stoning adulteresses and people who eat shellfish to death.6) Is this the best you can do? Try again.

But the Constitution does not call for minority rule. It calls for a representative republic wherein the majority chooses the representatives who determine policy. I'm the member of no church. I regularly attend a 7th Day Baptist church.They could vote for stores, etc being closed on Sundays or no liquor etc, but they couldn't vote the right to worship away. Apples and oranges. Under the Constitution, no individual picks and chooses policy. That's the duty of the people's reps elected to establish policy. Edited by Buzsaw, : No reason given.Edited by Buzsaw, : correct wording

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hi CS, I'm grateful to misha for jumping in with a well-documented answer to your question. (I wish I could make this a reply to two or three people at once -- I appreciate Taq's vote of approval as well, and I should mention that I wasn't quoting from some other source.)My own response to your question (now that I'm finally getting around to it) is that my point #3 follows from simple logical entailment (and I'm glad to see, thanks to misha, that there's legal precedent to back that up): if Congress were to enact a law whose motivation is based solely on the doctrine of a given religion, it would in effect be legislating belief in that religion (and the executive branch would be obliged to enforce that belief, punishing those who deny/violate it, and/or rewarding those who accept/practice it).At the risk of derailing the topic, a couple of examples would be legislating that any abortion constitutes murder (even when it saves the life of the mother), and that stem cell research cannot use the embryos discarded by fertility labs. The objections to abortion and embryonic stem cell research are based on a religious doctrine that the individual soul of a new human being is physically present as soon as conception occurs, and should be granted all the rights and protections of a breathing human being. Needless to say, this belief is not shared by all religions, let alone by agnostics and atheists; in any case, it is a belief that each individual (most pertinently, each pregnant woman) must accept or refuse on their own, because rational, objective observation so far has no way to determine when a living organism becomes endowed with a soul. The only way to posit a firm answer to that question is to assert a religious doctrine or a personal belief.That's not to say that we could never pass laws that limit the availability of abortion or embryonic stem cell research. It's just that doing so requires that there be a rational motivation (other than personal/religious belief), which objective minds would find not only acceptable, but preferable to the reasons for not limiting these things. Doing it just because these are sins against God (in some people's beliefs) would be doing it wrong, and the consequences would be dire.But the main topic here relates to education, and how the role of Christian religions should be portrayed in U.S. history books. To say that Christian religions were a significant factor in the formation of our form of government is certainly true: both the distaste for "rule by Divine Right" (as mentioned by Taq), and the active conflicts among various Christian sects within the new nation (as mentioned in one of my earlier replies), led the founders and voters to choose a form of government that is purely and scrupulously secular. These things should be understood clearly by all U.S. students.In light of the historical facts, to say that our government is founded on any form of Christian religion is demonstrably false, and it would be an offense (ethically and legally) for any school board to enforce such a view.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

As long as these policies do not infringe on the rights guaranteed by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights. No amount of representation can take these basic, inherent rights (i.e. freedom of religion, speach, press, assembly, trial by jury, due process, right to counsel, cruel and unusual punishment, etc) guaranteed in the US Constitution away. Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

---

One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It is simply too painful to acknowledge -- even to ourselves -- that we've been so credulous. - Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

Yet the Constitution does call for really important limitations on what sorts of policy those majority-elected representatives can make. If it were true that the majority shared a single, common religious belief, and this was also shared by the representatives that they elect, those representatives would still be forbidden, because of the First Amendment, to pass laws that enforce or endorse that religious belief (i.e. establish it by law), because doing so would violate the inalienable rights of the minority.You do understand that part, don't you Buz?Or are you stuck on the opinion that this piddly little minority should just get over whatever their problem is and adopt your beliefs? (Perhaps you'd like to see some government incentives to promote your beliefs?) If that's what you think, you're living in the wrong country. (Good luck finding one that's right for you.)

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

Up to a point. But that majority is limited in what they can do by the Constitution. They cannot, for example, pass a law enabling "cruel and unusual punishment" even if they really really want to.Under those circumstances, the majority wouldn't have their way and the minority would have theirs --- and this would not be "minority rule", it would be constitutional government. My apologies. My point, as amended to take this information into account, still stands. But the "oranges" in this case are of your own supplying. I never mentioned liquor laws or Sunday closing. I agree with you that elected bodies have the right and capacity to do these things.But I was talking about religious freedom. What I wrote was: "If a school board can tell you when to pray and who to pray to and what to pray for, then you do not have freedom of religion."And this is evidently true. If the majority is Catholic, they still can't make the kids say Hail Marys. If the majority is Democrat, they still can't make the kids pray for Democratic success in the next Congressional elections. And if the majority is theist, they still can't make the kids pray at all. However, you do get to pick and choose which policies you support. And apparently you are for religious freedom ... some of the time. When it suits you.

You've got that wrong, Otto.The free exercise clause forbids the government from denying the practice of religion. That applies to any place, including government facilities. Thus the practice of church in Congress sanctioned by the founders. Government can limit some rituals and/or actions by civil and federal laws, however. That's where the representives elected by the people set policy.Though the government can't pass laws establishing a religious sect, government cannot, according to the 1st Amendment restrict the practice of religion in or out of government facilities as the founders did indeed practice to the extent that the elected reps determined. Establishing and practicing are not one and the same.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

I wholeheartedly disagree with this.People need to grow up and realize the difference between personal things and non-personal things.There shouldn't even be laws restricting people's personal decisions from affecting others just like there shouldn't even be laws restricting people from stealing or murdering. These things should be common sense.Let me give you an example. I personally believe that all rapists should be hacked to death. I really do. I also personally believe that we as a society should eliminate religion. Before you say to yourself that I don't really believe this, I can assure you that I really do believe this on a personal level.The thing is I recognize that these are my personal beliefs and that since we are a diverse society these personal beliefs of mine will do more harm than good to society. Therefore, I have a separate set of beliefs I call non-personal beliefs. In other words, this separate set of beliefs include putting rapists away so (1) they stop harming others and (2) they can be rehabilitated and protecting people's right to personal religious beliefs. Why? Because I am mature enough to realize that MY personal beliefs aren't necessarily what's best for this country.Let's look at the alternative. If we embrace people's personal beliefs into our social policies, then the lactose intolerant people could potentially one day ban all dairy products from our market. Hell, it's potentially possible for the Amish to one day ban all video games from our stores.And let me repeat myself again. I think religion is evil. I sincerely hope that we as a race will one day grow out of this very childish and evil thing. But in the mean time, I will fight to the death for people's right to worship that imaginary god(s) of theirs. No offense, but I think this is an over-simplistic view of history. It is more accurate to describe it as a group of intellectuals who saw this new land as a place to experiment with new politics. The alternative was the Old World, which already had deep seated roots of the old regimes.If they really did want to separate themselves from divine right rule, they would not have allowed the institution of slavery to persist, which was a form of divine right rule itself. They also would not have had laws in place to treat women like property because there was nothing reasonable about that.

But these would not be Establishment Clause cases as such --- Lemon v. Kurtzman would not apply. In general, a law may be as religiously motivated as you please: it's when it's a law about religion that the Lemon Test kicks in.

I pretty much agree with most of what you posted, Dr Adequate. This is why a lot of what was practiced in the early days when Protestant Christianity was quite dominant, nobody in most situations objected to what was practiced in the public facilities.Now that we have a more diverse population, elected reps and the courts have established different policy and that's the way a republic should work, so long as policy remains within the perameters of the Constitution. That's were it gets sticky and controversial, i.e. interpreting the Constitution's intent. Then we go full circle back to the intent of people who's constituency were predominantly Christian. Of course, their intent would be more Christian oriented than the intent of many of our interpreting judges today.Bottom line: As we the people of the Republic (majority) become more secular, the intent of our Christian oriented founders becomes less relevant.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Hi again, CS. I just wanted to add something on this point: I understand what you mean, and it is a regrettable situation. It's also regrettable that the same applies in the other direction: "{yadda yadda...} does not mean that laws derived from a scientific/secular view are wrong. Too often I hear people claiming they are. It's all those fundamentalist-literalist-Christians that just despise science..." You see how it is?Obviously, most (all?) religions encompass most of what we atheists would consider mankind's core ethical/moral foundation. That is what the various religions have in common, and that (we are bound to conclude) is what they all have right. When we fail to acknowledge this, we are in error. But then, it's also an error when any one religion claims to be the sole proponent or source for this or that virtue (or all virtues generally).We should expect a lot of overlap between views derived from religion and those derived objectively. But as we often see here at EvC, there's a tendency for atheists to dwell on those religious views -- including scriptural passages -- that defy any sort of objective sensibility, and even run counter to what we now hold as our ethical foundation. And of course, the whole reason for EvC's existence is the compulsion of some Christians to refute science when it defies their religious sensibilities.

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

"By the founders"? Well, not by all of them. James Madison, who, you will recall, wrote the First Amendment, and must have had some idea what he meant by it, had this to say about it: Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.