The Founding Myth: Why Christian Nationalism Is Un-American

This looks like a good book. On the surface, it seems fair and balanced. I have as yet only read the amazon preview. Sample

I don't know if I'd go so far to say that it is "un-American" but there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the notion of American being a "Christian Nation" runs counter to the Founding Fathers intentions.The term "separation of church and state" derives from a letter written to the Danbury Baptists of Connecticut explaining to them that they should have no fear that the gov't would institute a national religion.Likewise, Thomas Jefferson also wrote a treatise concerning the Barbary Wars sent to Muslims that detailed the United States as specifically not a Christian nation.My take is that colonial Americans certainly mostly were religious, specifically Christian as it was a custom past down from its European past, but that the government itself sought to remain completely neutral. Therefore the invocation of the US being a "Christian Nation" is prefaced on a distortion of the facts.But I wouldn't go so far to call it un-American. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

When they try to impose religious based laws over people of different beliefs it is unconstitutional and when they claim authority from belief over that of the constitution it is un-American. Agreed. They were all well acquainted with the excesses of theistic governments, including the burnings, torture and executions of people not of the "proper" faith -- even including other Christian sects. Including those very same behaviors in Massachusetts by the Puritans in spite of them coming to America to escape such persecution. Shoe on the other foot is just as evil.Christians should be happy here, and they should embrace full separation of Church and State. That they aren't is their fault and their narrow-mindedness.Not only is it delusional, it is dangerous: who gets to decide which particular sect's beliefs will be ensconced and who will determine what punishments are meted out for blasphemies against those beliefs?See List of Christian denominations and consider all the differences from one to the next.Enjoy

You're right, that aspect is completely and fundamentally un-American as it flies in the face of the Bill of Rights. Sometimes we hear convenient ways around it, "I answer to a higher a law," which is really an excuse to replace constitutional law with religious dogma. I'm sure if Pence or Huckabee could have his way he would subvert the US into essentially a Christian caliphate (his denomination of course), but they would never view such a usurpation in those terms. Kind of amazing how frenetic many fundies are over Islam without seeing the obvious parallels between the two religious.

Some of the sweetest tasting irony is christians who push Sharia law conspiracy theories. They pee themselves at the thought of being under Muslim law, but can't seem to understand why imposing their own beliefs on others is such a problem. [I see Hyro and I share the same sense of humor]There's a Youtube channel called "Knowing Better" that is well worth checking out. A recent video covered the Sovereign movement, which is more or less the fringe of the Ron Paul movement (uber-fringey). One subset of the movement claims that they aren't subject to US law because the government is not God. Absolutely amazing.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The Bundy Boys. Timothy McVeigh. Wow. So I just watched Denying Your History | Armenian Genocide, because the Armenian Genocide has always seemed hidden in shadows to me. Interesting.Then I looked up Sovereign Citizens: Whackadoodles. Almost as bad as the delusional fundies trying to claim they/we should be living in a theocracy.Enjoy

That was in 1811, as I seem to recall, somewhat after the fact with regards to the First Amendment. However, that letter is only the source of that specific wording, not of the concept itself.We find the concept presented clearly in James Madison's A Memorial and Remonstrance, a pamphlet he was urged to write in 1785 in opposition Patrick Henry's bill in the Virginia Legislature to use tax money to pay for preachers (AKA, "teachers of the Christian religion"). The pamphlet turned public opinion so much against the bill that it died without coming to a vote and, instead, Thomas Jefferson's Religious Liberty Bill was voted into law. And a few years later, James Madison drafted the First Amendment. A Memorial and Remonstrance presents 15 points arguing for religious liberty and against entangling government and religion. Regarding Jefferson's Wall, here a Great Barrier which defends the rights of the people:

quote:

---

2. Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

---

My page which provides the text of A Memorial and Remonstrance is at http://dwise1.net/rel_lib/memorial.html. Of course, you could do your own search for other sites which carry it along with more of its history.