Is America a Christian Nation?

Your right that was a typo om my part sorry.Edited by Evangelical Humanists, : No reason given.Edited by Evangelical Humanists, : No reason given.

By my standards, freedom of religion doesn't mean the right to pracitce the religion of your choice (or no religion). It means freedom from domination by any religion.In Canada, the dominant religion is Roman Catholicism. Those of us who are not Catholics don't want our government dominated by Catholics or Catholic ideas. (Of course, many Catholics don't want that either.) For that reason, fundamentalists in Canada seem quite happy with separation of church and state.

We are discussing your claim that the US is a Christian nation. I agree that Penn included some Christian principles in Pennsylvania's government. But none of the Christian stuff made it into our Constitution.And this lengthy post of yours does nothing to advance your claim. It's just a long list of things in Penn's government.I find discussing things with you somewhat frustrating because you have a problem supporting your propositions with making on point, fact based arguments.

Hi NoNukes, I agree ... and that are related to the topic issues. I've had the same problem on the age correlations thread.Perhaps what we are dealing with is strong confirmation bias, a condition that leads one to the impression that some cherry-picked piece of evidence is all that is necessary while ignoring the rest of the picture that doesn't fit the beliefs.

quote:

---

Confirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency of people to favor information that confirms their beliefs or hypotheses.[Note 1][1] People display this bias when they gather or remember information selectively, or when they interpret it in a biased way. The effect is stronger for emotionally charged issues and for deeply entrenched beliefs. For example, in reading about gun control, people usually prefer sources that affirm their existing attitudes. They also tend to interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing position. Biased search, interpretation and memory have been invoked to explain attitude polarization (when a disagreement becomes more extreme even though the different parties are exposed to the same evidence), belief perseverance (when beliefs persist after the evidence for them is shown to be false), the irrational primacy effect (a greater reliance on information encountered early in a series) and illusory correlation (when people falsely perceive an association between two events or situations).

---

Enjoy.

Hi Jzyehoshua, And yet this is just one of the colonies, so if you are going to look at the colonies you have to look at all of them, not just the one/s that meet your beliefs and opinions.For instance Roger Williams and Providence Plantation (later Rhode Island)

quote:

---

Roger Williams (c. 1603 — between January and March 1683) was an English Protestant theologian who was an early proponent of religious freedom and the separation of church and state. In 1636, he began the colony of Providence Plantation, which provided a refuge for religious minorities. Williams started the first Baptist church in America, the First Baptist Church of Providence. He was a student of Native American languages and an advocate for fair dealings with Native Americans. Williams was arguably the very first abolitionist in North America, having organized the first attempt to ban slavery in any of the original thirteen colonies.

---

He knew first hand what happens when there is a state religion -- not from england, but from Massachusetts

quote:

---

Religion, 1599-1683

​

... His views on religion and government quickly embroiled him in disputes with the Massachusetts authorities in Salem and Boston. He upset the elders by denouncing the Massachusetts Bay charter, which allowed the confiscation of Native American lands without compensation and the punishment of purely religious transgressions by the civil officials. Both of those practices offended Williams’ sensibilities.

​

In 1635, he was expelled from the church and placed under an order of expulsion from the colony. He was granted time to tidy up his affairs, but continued his agitation. Exasperated officials decided to send him back to England, but Williams departed from Massachusetts on his own accord and spent three months living with local Indians. In 1636, he and a number of followers established the settlement of Providence on Narragansett Bay, a colony notable for the fact that the Indians were paid for the title to their lands. Williams founded the first Baptist Church in America, but soon withdrew and thereafter referred to himself as a "seeker," meaning basically a nondenominational Christian in search of spiritual truth.

​

One of Williams’ beliefs had caused particular grief among the authorities. He argued that an individual Christian would know when he was saved, but could not know about the salvation of others. Therefore, it was senseless to require a religious qualification for voting. In essence, Williams was calling for the complete separation of church and state, a position that undercut the authority of the church and civic leaders.

​

Williams obtained a royal charter for Rhode Island in 1644, an action that demonstrated a practical side to his character. He continued to believe that the king did not hold title to Indian lands, but realized that his colony would be more secure from English opponents if he held a charter.

​

Under Williams' influence, Rhode Island became a haven for those who suffered from religious persecution, including Jews and Quakers.

---

Note that he was lucky not to be stoned or burned at the stake as other people were in the Plymouth and Salem colonies.Because of the religious freedom that he insisted on, the oldest synagogue in North America is located in Newport RI.And we should also remember that not all the colonies were founded by religious groups looking for religious freedom in the new land, there were also merchant colonies.Enjoy.

quote:

---

We are discussing your claim that the US is a Christian nation. I agree that Penn included some Christian principles in Pennsylvania's government. But none of the Christian stuff made it into our Constitution.

​

And this lengthy post of yours does nothing to advance your claim. It's just a long list of things in Penn's government.

---

That lengthy post was in reply to NoNukes after they questioned whether Pennsylvania was a Christian government. It achieved its purpose of showing that Pennsylvania definitely was a Christian government.As for anything Christian making it into the U.S. Constitution, it did make it into all the state constitutions, which all reference God.God in the State Constitutions - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
The Fifty States Reference God in their Constitutions-Truth! - Truth or Fiction?It did make it into the Declaration of Independence. It did make it into Jefferson's Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Just because the U.S. Constitution isn't as explicit as the state constitutions or those other 2 major sources, doesn't negate the fact that American democracy as we know it began with William Penn and a very definitely Christian nation.

Fair enough. Just show me what other colonies had Congressional governing systems with checks and balances, freedom of religion, fair elections, and trial by jury, and I'll be happy to take a look at them. But by your own acknowledgement wasn't Williams, another early proponent of religious freedom, a Baptist? I appreciate the info, I wasn't aware of Williams, but you didn't really point out how the government he set up was not Christian in nature. Because if it was - as might be expected of a Baptist minister - then wouldn't it just be an additional proof, along with Penn, that America's origins, along with the origins of religious freedom, were Christian in nature?Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Jzyehoshua None of which are found in any bible as far as I know. Perhaps you can enlighten me.Not coming from the bible means not from christian sources but other sources, even if then espoused by christian leaders.

quote:

---

... Williams founded the first Baptist Church in America, but soon withdrew and thereafter referred to himself as a "seeker," meaning basically a nondenominational Christian in search of spiritual truth. ...

---

No, because his views were in conflict with the religious views regarding the running of government.You just had a lot of Christians but they also had concepts from other sources than Christianity (a Christian doing math does not make math Christian in origin does it?), and they were mixed with other people, and in Roger Williams view, especially with the Native Indians. Benjamin Franklin also so profound value in Native Indian government and its procedures and processes.The Iroquois in particular are known to have influenced many founding fathers on their way of governments.Complete Book: "FORGOTTEN FOUNDERS, Benjamin Franklin, the Iroquois and the Rationale for the American Revolution," By Bruce E. Johansen

quote:

---

... well-organized polities governed by a system that one contemporary of Franklin's, Cadwallader Colden, wrote had "outdone the Romans." Colden was writing of a social and political system so old that the immigrant Europeans knew nothing of its origins -- a federal union of five (and later six) Indian nations that had put into practice concepts of popular participation and natural rights that the European savants had thus far only theorized. The Iroquoian system, expressed through its constitution, "The Great Law of Peace," rested on assumptions foreign to the monarchies of Europe: it regarded leaders as servants of the people, rather than their masters, and made provisions for the leaders' impeachment for errant behavior. The Iroquois' law and custom upheld freedom of expression in political and religious matters, and it forbade the unauthorized entry of homes. It provided for political participation by women and the relatively equitable distribution of wealth. These distinctly democratic tendencies sound familiar in light of subsequent American political history -- yet few people today (other than American Indians and students of their heritage) know that a republic existed on our soil before anyone here had ever heard of John Locke, or Cato, the Magna Charta, Rousseau, Franklin, or Jefferson.

---

I suggest you read the whole thing if you are truly interested in the source of concepts used in the Constitution and the founding of America - the "great experiment" - in ways that differed from European Christians, kings, etc.These concepts are basic to the fabric of America, and they did not come from any type of Christianity I know of, nor from any European source I know of.Roger Williams lived with the local Native Americans here before founding his colony, and only got the colony charter for political reasons, not because he felt it gave him any additional authority. Interesting person (and not all a saint either, but none of the founding fathers were eh?).Enjoy.

When Williams and his associates applied for a Royal Charter, they asked the King to grant full freedom of conscience, which he did: (Oddly, the people of Rhode Island retained the charter as the legal foundation of their state until 1843, well after the War of Independence, and didn't establish an actual Constitution until that date.)Rhode Island as a consequence became a haven not just for Christian minorities, but for Jews, and has the oldest synagogue in the United States. This exchange of letters between the Jews of Newport and George Washington is rather touching.

I agree with you completely about Rhode Island being an ideal example of religious freedom, better even than William Penn's, since it granted freedom also to Jews.I guess the reason I see this all being at issue is that it seems like social progressives (I'm personally progressive on economics) want to deny our founding fathers were Christian or guided by Christian ideals when proposing freedom of religion. The way social conservatives at least have been seeing it, they want to remove all mention of God from the Pledge of Allegiance, courtrooms, and state constitutions in the name of religious freedom and Constitutionality - even in cases where the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution put those mentions of God there in the first place. There was a huge controversy in recent years over whether the Ten Commandments could be displayed on courthouse grounds, for example - the ACLU fought vigorously and prevailed in removing the Ten Commandments.You've got cases where Christian groups can't be led in public schools, or prayer allowed on sports teams, even when all members would support it. And any bill that can be accused of having a Christian motivation, even something as simple as a sticker on evolution textbooks saying that evolution is a theory, is accused of breaking the law on separation of church and state. Or those who say marriage should remain between a man and a woman unless solid evidence can be shown that homosexuality has a genetic basis, and that marriage shouldn't be expanded to where it becomes meaningless under the belief absolute morality doesn't exist and shouldn't be instituted in government, are likewise accused of violating separation of church and state.Separation of church and state seems to have become about infringing on religious freedom of Christians so that, because of their moral, religious views, they can't have a voice on how government should be run, and only atheists should be able to direct our country. This is why I argue about what the founding fathers were like, and whether or not they were Christians; as well as what separation of church and state and religious freedom were really meant to accomplish.

Any law must, let me repeat, must primarily have a secular purpose.As a Christian I fully support keeping the Ten Commandments, references to God, prayers in schools restricted and removing "Under God" from the Pledge and "In God We Trust" from all currency.This is not an atheist Christian issue, it is an issue of keeping Church and Government separated.

I don't see anyone denying that most of them were Christian (some, I believe, were more deist in their inclinations). As for "Christian ideals", Christians have no monopoly on the desire to separate church and state. I am absolutely certain that the Founding Fathers didn't put any mention of God in the Pledge of Allegiance. Nor did the guy who actually wrote it. Obviously they can have a voice. They can also vote according to what they think God wants them to do. What they can't do is institutionalize Christianity.Yes, that includes employees of the state telling children when to pray and how to pray and who to pray to and what to pray for. Yes, that includes using public money and public land to display icons of one sectarian group of one religion. Yes, that involves using any public funds to push the agenda of creationist sects. When Madison wrote "total separation" he didn't add "unless you really want to".

But how can freedoms exist without acknowledging God? The Declaration of Independence states a Creator gives us our inalienable rights. Ultimately, how do we define what freedoms and laws are? Where does our concept of morality come from? And how is it determined?Without respect of a Creator, what keeps one person from infringing on the rights of another person? Their rights to freedom of religion, speech, property, or life?Furthermore, on what basis can we determine ultimate right and wrong? We take it as granted what the Ten Commandments state, that it is wrong to kill or steal. But how do we know this? For this wrong to exist absolutely it must be legislated as such by a higher power, and therefore, laws and morality are not devised by human beings, but implanted by a Creator on our universe, and within the hearts and souls of all creations.If people do not acknowledge a Creator, they will become gradually more wicked in always seeking to condone their own wickedness, arguing their actions should not be considered wrong so that gradually nothing gets considered wrong - even when it infringes on the rights of their fellow human beings to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.We do need to keep church and government separated. We also need to keep science and government separated. And political parties and government separated. Any institution, whether religious, scientific, or political will seek to usurp the reins of government for its own selfish and prejudicial ends, harming those it disagrees with. Institutions and organizations must not be allowed to silence opposing points of view.However, we cannot keep faith and government separated, as faith or religious belief is like any other belief that should be allowed free expression according to the 1st amendment, so long as it does not seek to silence the expression of other opposing views. Otherwise, this would be prejudice contrary to religious freedom.

Freedoms exist based on societal consensus. Notice that the Declaration of Independence starts "We hold..."It is a matter of a group expressing a belief statement.There is no such thing as ultimate right or wrong. Again, those things evolve through consensus.No creator has EVER kept one person from infringing on the rights of another person.Morality too evolves through building a consensus within a State, society or culture.And we must keep faith and the Government separated.

I agree about not institutionalizing Christianity. But I guess the question is, what's the difference between what you mentioned, and having taught as undeniable fact to impressionable young minds the theory of Evolution or the Big Bang, both of which are frankly opinions, and using tax dollars to do so? What is the difference between teaching children about homosexual role models as the gay rights movement is having done in states across the U.S.? What is the difference between forcing millions of Pro-Life Americans to fund Planned Parenthood through the new healthcare law? What is the difference between having a Stimulus give millions of dollars in earmarks to Pro-Evolution organizations and scientists, and not to Creationist ones?4/14/11: California Senate mandates homosexual role models for schoolchildren - SaveCalifornia.comHow are these opinions forced on Americans who don't support them a different case?