Is America a Christian Nation?

Whether America began a Christian nation is debatable, but what is not questionable is that it was based upon the first democracy in America, the Province of Pennsylvania founded in 1682 by William Penn, that was most definitely a Christian nation. Much of America's government was based on Penn's, which originated concepts like a 2-house elected assembly, a bill of rights with freedom of religion/speech/property, term limits, women's rights, and fair trial by jury.I've written quite a bit about it at CreationWiki:William Penn - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceThe Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom by Thomas Jefferson and the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments by James Madison also show the founders thought of religious freedom very differently from the Separation of Church and State concept used by progressives today. Both believed, per the Declaration of Independence, that inalienable rights and freedom of religion are the result of their being given by a Creator, and referenced a Creator frequently in legislation to prove this. They were never supportive of removing mention of God from government, or preventing Christian influence on government, but rather of preventing a single religious denomination/institution like Catholicism/Anglicanism from persecuting other denominations through government. I've written articles on these also:Virginia statute for religious freedom - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceMemorial and remonstrance against religious assessments - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

quote:

---

Um ... except that they subscribed to and practically invented "the Separation of Church and State concept used by progressives today".

---

Strongly disagreed. If you read Jefferson's Virginia Statute especially, you'll see he used wording that would cause progressives today to go into seizure. I mean, just look at how the document begins:

"An Act for establishing religious Freedom.

​

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

​

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

​

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

​

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

​

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

​

That our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"

That's not, needless to say, something you hear from a progressive trying to keep mention of God out of government. Like the Declaration of Independence, it references a Creator as the basis for inalienable rights consistent with the Bible. Rather than trying to limit religious expression in government, it seeks to protect it.

quote:

---

Yes, and they also believed in the separation of church and state.

​

Like many conservative Christians before you, your reasoning appears to contain a fundamental(ist) error. It goes something like this:

​

(1) Only irreligious people would want church-state separation and a secular government.
(2) The Founding Fathers were not irreligious people.
(3) Therefore, this is not what they wanted.

​

But premise 1 is simply false.

---

Not what I said. Rather, my reasoning is more like this:(1) Progressives say we did not begin a Christian nation.
(2) This is clearly false per William Penn's 1682 government.and(1) Progressives say the founders intended to keep religion out of government, and that we should remove mention of God from government.
(2) This is clearly false since Jefferson's writing strongly invoked God and belief in God as the basis for religious freedom.
(3) Jefferson was not writing to stop religious expression in government since as he said, "our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions any more than our opinions in physics or geometry". Rather he was seeking to stop the abuse of institutions specifically, like Anglicanism, Catholicism, and arguably today's Evolutionary establishment, from "assum[ing] dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others". Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

We're not talking about their religious sentiments. We're talking about them enshrining in U.S. law the fact that a Creator is the basis for religious freedom. We're talking about how their concept of Separation of Church and State is completely opposite the concept of Separation of Church and State that Progressives today have. The Declaration of Independence states:

quote:

---

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

---

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htmThe Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom states:

quote:

---

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

---

Virginia statute for religious freedom - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceSeems pretty clear to me.

The Virginia Statute speaks of "Almighty God, who being Lord of both mind and body". That's not well-fitted for religions apart from the Bible. But it's not explicit in regards to Christianity.William Penn's government in 1682, America's first democracy, was explicitly Christian, however. It based marriage on the Bible and declared Sunday a day of rest for both citizens and the government. Much of what's considered American was actually based on Penn's government over a century before the U.S. Constitution.Province of pennsylvania - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

quote:

---

What I mean by "total separation of the church from the state" is no different from what Madison meant by it. Indeed, if anything, I am more easy-going on the subject than Madison: for example, I have no objection to the provision of chaplains to the military.

---

What you believe on Separation of Church and State I'm not sure. We may be in agreement. All I'm saying is the founders opposed restrictions on religious expression, including in U.S. politics, as evidenced by the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. My point was that Jefferson, the same guy who created the term and concept of a "wall of separation" was at the same time writing (in U.S. Law mind you) about how Almighty God is Lord of both mind and body yet didn't coerce others into belief, and this is the basis for U.S. religious freedom.Obviously if he wanted to stop Christians from presenting views on God in government, he wouldn't have used such religious language himself in referencing "Almighty God". His own document on religious freedom provides an example of what his thought process on religious freedom was like, and what should be permissible. Therefore, it should be alright for me to write a bill proclaiming Almighty God institutes X rights, and drawing logical conclusions as such, just as Jefferson did.

The U.S. was founded on William Penn's 1682 government, the Province of Pennsylvania, which clearly was a Christian nation. You still haven't refuted this.

Thomas Jefferson called Penn "the greatest lawgiver the world has produced". His government in 1682 originated the principles of representative government, separation of church and state, and elimination of nobility and ranks. THIS VENERABLE DOCUMENTIt produced almost exactly a century before the U.S. Constitution concepts such as an elected 2-house Congress to pass bills, religious freedom, freedom of speech, and a Bill of Rights.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/pa04.aspI wrote an in-depth analysis of the charter here:Province of pennsylvania - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceThe U.S. House and Senate were clearly designed around Pennsylvania's General Assembly and Provincial Council, and required 2/3 approval for bill passage. It had a Governor like today's President and 18-member subcommittees within the Provincial Council, similar to today's Senatorial committees. The 1701 Charter of Privileges was much like the later Bill of Rights guaranteeing freedom of religion, right to private property, free elections, and fair trials.http://www.constitution.org/bcp/penncharpriv.htmCourtrooms were similar to today's as well. Witnesses were commanded to speak "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth", something we adopted. There was even a public education system where children at age 12 were taught useful trades/skills.

Not sure how you think this is a "new point". The first post I wrote here, Message 141, began with the following:

quote:

---

Whether America began a Christian nation is debatable, but what is not questionable is that it was based upon the first democracy in America, the Province of Pennsylvania founded in 1682 by William Penn, that was most definitely a Christian nation. Much of America's government was based on Penn's, which originated concepts like a 2-house elected assembly, a bill of rights with freedom of religion/speech/property, term limits, women's rights, and fair trial by jury.
I've written quite a bit about it at CreationWiki:

​

William Penn - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

---

My original and main point was always William Penn, others just chose initially to focus on my lesser points about Jefferson and the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom.

Well, as far as being a Christian nation, Penn's government:-Strongly declared this in the beginning of the Preface, stating:

quote:

---

When the great and wise God had made the world, of all his creatures, it pleased him to chuse man his Deputy to rule it: and to fit him for so great a charge and trust, he did not only qualify him with skill and power, but with integrity to use them justly. This native goodness was equally his honour and his happiness, and whilst he stood here, all went well; there was no need of coercive or compulsive means; the precept of divine love and truth, in his bosom, was the guide and keeper of his innocency. But lust prevailing against duty, made a lamentable breach upon it; and the law, that before had no power over him, took place upon him, and his disobedient posterity, that such as would not live comformable to the holy law within, should fall under the reproof and correction of the just law without, in a Judicial administration.

​

This the Apostle teaches in divers of his epistles: " The law (says he) was added because of transgression: " In another place, " Knowing that the law was not made for the righteous man; but for the disobedient and ungodly, for sinners, for unholy and prophane, for murderers, for wlloremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, and for man-stealers, for lyers, for perjured persons," &c., but this is not all, he opens and carries the matter of government a little further: " Let every soul be subject to the higher powers; for there is no power but of God. The powers that be are ordained of God: whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil: wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same." " He is the minister of God to thee for good." " Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but for conscience sake."

​

This settles the divine right of government beyond exception, and that for two ends: first, to terrify evil doers: secondly, to cherish those that do well; which gives government a life beyond corruption, and makes it as durable in the world, as good men shall be. So that government seems to me a part of religion itself, a filing sacred in its institution and end. For, if it does not directly remove the cause, it crushes the effects of evil, and is as such, (though a lower, yet) an emanation of the same Divine Power, that is both author and object of pure religion; the difference lying here, that the one is more free and mental, the other more corporal and compulsive in its operations: but that is only to evil doers; government itself being otherwise as capable of kindness, goodness and charity, as a more private society. They weakly err, that think there is no other use of government, than correction, which is the coarsest part of it: daily experience tells us, that the care and regulation of many other affairs, more soft, and daily necessary, make up much of the greatest part of government; and which must have followed the peopling of the world, had Adam never fell, and will continue among men, on earth, under the highest attainments they may arrive at, by the coming of the blessed Second Adam, the Lord from heaven. Thus much of government in general, as to its rise and end.

---

-Based marriage on "the law of God":

quote:

---

XIX. That all marriages (not forbidden by the law of God, as to nearness of blood and affinity by marriage) shall be encouraged; but the parents, or guardians, shall be first consulted, and the marriage shall be published before it be solemnized; and it shall be solemnized by taking one another as husband and wife, before credible witnesses; and a certificate of the whole, under the hands of parties and witnesses, shall be brought to the proper register of that county, and shall be registered in his office.

---

-Required public officials be Christians:

quote:

---

XXXIV. That all Treasurers, Judges, Masters of the Rolls, Sheriffs, Justices of the Peace, and other officers and persons whatsoever, relating to courts, or trials of causes or any other service in the government; and all Members elected to serve in provincial Council and General Assembly, and all that have right to elect such Members, shall be such as possess faith in Jesus Christ, and that are not convicted of ill fame, or unsober and dishonest conversation, and that are of one and twenty years of age, at least; and that all such so qualified, shall be capable of the said several employments and privileges, as aforesaid.

---

-Had Sunday "Blue Laws":

quote:

---

XXII. That, as often as any day of the month, mentioned in any article of this charter, shall fall upon the first day of the week, commonly called the Lord's Day, the business appointed for that day shall be deferred till the next day, unless in case of emergency.
XXXVI. That, according to the good example of the primitive Christians, and the case of the creation, every first day of the week, called the Lord's day, people shall abstain from their common daily labour, that they may the better dispose themselves to worship God according to their understandings.

---

-Outlawed homosexuality, profanity, gambling, lying, incest, drunkenness, prostitution, and cruelty to animals based on the Bible:

quote:

---

XXXVII. That as a careless and corrupt administration of justice draws the wrath of God upon magistrates, so the wildness and looseness of the people provoke the indignation of God against a country: therefore, that all such offences against God, as swearing, cursing, lying, prophane talking, drunkenness, drinking of healths, obscene words, incest, sodomy, rapes, whoredom, fornication, and other uncleanness (not to be repeated) all treasons, misprisions, murders, duels, felony, seditions, maims, forcible entries, and other violences, to the persons and estates of the inhabitants within this province; all prizes, stage-plays, cards, dice, May-games, gamesters, masques, revels, bull-battings, cock-fightings, bear-battings, and the like, which excite the people to rudeness, cruelty, looseness, and irreligion, shall be respectively discouraged, and severely punished, according to the appointment of the Governor and freemen in provincial Council and General Assembly; as also all proceedings contrary to these laws, that are not here made expressly penal.

---

Province of pennsylvania - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science By today's standards such a definition of religious freedom, omitting atheists, is inadequate, but at the time it was a huge step forward. Institutions like Catholicism and Anglicanism required those in countries they dominated to pay tithes to the state church and prevented those of other denominations from running for office, or even had them imprisoned and their properties seized. By providing religious freedom to all Christians Pennsylvania made an unusual change for its time.

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.

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.

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.

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?

To me it looks like those who say church and state should be kept separate, as evidenced by the examples I gave, are in reality doing exactly what Jefferson predicted, actually institutionalizing their own beliefs in law, and infringing on the religious freedoms of those they disagree with. If it is wrong to institutionalize one side's beliefs and force them on others, it should be for the other side also.

quote:

---

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

​

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

​

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

​

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

---

Virginia statute for religious freedom - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceEdited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.