Is America a Christian Nation?

Uh ... you read the quotations, right? It does, however, appear to be what you're thinking, or why would you think that the religious sentiments of Madison and Jefferson had any relevance whatsoever to the question of whether they favored separation of Church and State? Well, at first glance, and indeed second and third glance, that appears to be a lie so vast that it's in danger of undergoing gravitational collapse and turning into a black hole. Would you care to try to justify it or elaborate on it?

They didn't. Nor is it a fact. It isn't.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. I have never denied that the Founders possessed religious sentiments. I have indeed asserted it. It does indeed. And your point was? How on earth does that support your claim that it seeks to protect religious expression in government?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

But they instituted restrictions on religious expression by the government.Yes, obviously they let politicians, in their capacity as private individuals, express whatever religion they wanted, just like any other person could. But they forbade them to do so in their capacity as holders of public offices. I think you might find that the First Amendment would be an obstacle in certain cases. After all, have you ever seen any of the whackier breed of Republican congressmen writing a bill saying what Almighty God thinks? And yet they do think that they know what Almighty God thinks and that he's in favor of every bill they write, it's one of the more egregiously nutty things about them. I would suggest, then, that if they don't do that it's because they know that they can't.And really, would it be desirable if they could? Should Congress be allowed to pass laws saying what God thinks?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

There seems to be an inconsistency in your narrative.

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 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".

Religious freedom doesn't entail freedom to play dog-in-the-manger. A flat-Earth sect shouldn't stop state schools from buying globes, or stop the Navy from buying and using navigation systems based on spherical geometry. Nor does the existence of Jehovah's Witnesses prevent them from spending money on blood transfusions, nor the existence of Scientologists prevent them from offering psychiatric treatment to soldiers with PTSD. The existence of white supremacist churches doesn't stop people from teaching about black role models nor render Martin Luther King Day unconstitutional. Pacifist religious groups such as the Quakers do not entail that we should abolish the Army. If there are still any Christians left who pay any attention to the strictures in the Bible against usury, that wouldn't stop the government from borrowing or lending money at interest. And if a cult arose that claimed that two twos were five, schools would not have to abandon teaching the multiplication table.The government is free to act for secular purposes, such as making sure that the Navy can get their ships from point A to point B, without reference to this or that religious belief. If they couldn't, then that would be an entanglement of church with state; moreover, it would be stupid.This does not leave religious people entirely without recourse --- for example, if Quakers could persuade enough people to share their views, we could vote to abolish the Army. But the First Amendment does not oblige us to abolish it right now out of deference to their religion.(And since there were Quakers back when the USA was founded, and we had an army even back then, it is plain that the Founders agreed with my interpretation of the First Amendment in this respect at least.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

d.p.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It is --- they're not allowed to use taxpayers' money to teach their religious doctrines either. Of course, they don't want to.I think you're playing about a bit with words like "belief" and "opinion" here. Jefferson clearly thought that one shouldn't be compelled to pay for a religion one does not believe in. This is different from saying that one should not be compelled to pay for a government program that one does not believe in. In a democracy, such things are going to happen. For example, people who opposed the war with Iraq still had to pay for it. I must have missed the clamor of fundamentalists explaining that this contravened the spirit of the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom --- or if they made any mention of it, it must have been drowned out by the din they made rattling their sabres.

But the line you're taking is not one that can be taken by the government.Don't you see that if they started making distinctions, the First Amendment would have gone completely up the spout? They'd have to start saying: "OK, we don't have to pander to this church (on inter-racial marriage) but we do have to pander to this other more favored church (on gay marriage). We don't have to accommodate the to the Quakers, who tell us that war is clearly murder, but we must accommodate the Catholics who say the same thing about abortion. The geoplanarians are a small sect, we can draw up a school curriculum without reference to them; but there are many creationists, so we can't teach anything that they find offensive. Moreover, I personally think that the views of geoplanarians are clearly wrong, whereas I being but a simple Supreme Court Justice find it harder to refute creationists. Now, how about the geocentrists? How stupid do I think they are, and how many of them are there?"Now, you as a private individual can dismiss certain religious beliefs because the minority that holds them is a small one, or because you find those beliefs silly and easy to refute. That's your perfect right.But we can't put the government in the business of deciding that, and establishing that for First Amendment purposes some churches are important churches such that taxpayers' money should never be spent in any way that might grieve or upset their adherents, whereas other churches are just silly little cults that no-one needs to bother about.Now of course the elected officials can pander to this or that church to some extent, and may indeed do so by counting heads. Hence, some churches have more political clout than others. But we can't have some churches having a different constitutional position based on how large they are or whether we think they're silly.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That hardly seems to mean anything. How does someone impose a homosexual opinion on your faith? So ... do you deserve a tax rebate?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, I kinda liked the constitutional republic we have. But my best wishes on your endeavor to abolish it.

And where did they actually occur? Could I see some specific instances? Only I know what hate crime legislation actually is, so I am doubtful of your claims. You missed my point. I mean: if you were opposed to the war, does that mean that you shouldn't have to pay for it?