America's Christian Heritage (Just in time for July 4th!)

[aCultureWarrior]

“In order to ensure genuine freedom of conscience for the working people, the church is separated from the State, and the school from the church: and freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.”
-Article 13 of the general provisions of the constitution of the USSR, adopted in July 1918

In case anyone was wondering where the real "Separation of Church and State" argument originated.

 

[The Baron]

“In order to ensure genuine freedom of conscience for the working people, the church is separated from the State, and the school from the church: and freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.”
-Article 13 of the general provisions of the constitution of the USSR, adopted in July 1918

In case anyone was wondering where the real "Separation of Church and State" argument originated.

Fundamentally stupid. Do you not understand that the USA is older than the former USSR?

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Fundamentally stupid. Do you not understand that the USA is older than the former USSR?

Being that Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptist Church had absolutely nothing to do with what you ACLU'ers try to make it out to mean (he didn't want another Church of England, ie. a state church), I posted where the real term came from: Your beloved mass murdering communists.

 

[The Baron]

Being that Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptist Church had absolutely nothing to do with what you ACLU'ers try to make it out to mean (he didn't want another Church of England, ie. a state church), I posted where the real term came from: Your beloved mass murdering communists.

I hate the ACLU and I'm not a commie. And you're right about the Dansbury Baptist letter.
Calm down.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I hate the ACLU and I'm not a commie. And you're right about the Dansbury Baptist letter.
Calm down.

Now that you know the truth about the term "separation of church and state", I'm much more "calm" knowing that one more person out there knows the truth.

 

[the Avatar]

It's getting late. I will pick it up again here. Don't post anything else just yet, please. Give me a bit of time to catch up. I'm juggling quite a few balls at the moment.

Hakuna matata. It'll be well worth the wait.

Being that Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptist Church had absolutely nothing to do with what you ACLU'ers try to make it out to mean (he didn't want another Church of England, ie. a state church), I posted where the real term came from: Your beloved mass murdering communists.

Oh, goodie. Another round of "everything I don't like is Soviet Russia".

Many Americans have a vested interest in claiming that their country is Christian, by which they usual mean some sort of diaphanous hodgepodge of socially conservative evangelical denominations in general. And that really is where the line is drawn: no one with any clout actually advocates for a denominational state religion. To me, that just makes it kind of obvious that this debate at its core is actually about how reasonable it is to use the U.S. government as a blunt tool to legally whack at people evangelicals generally disapprove of.

Some Christians believe in hardcore dominionist or theonomist theologies and actually do advocate for an overtly religious State, but it's more common to for people to think that America's fundamental cultural identity requires some kind of Christianity at its center. But that is a purely ideological belief. It's a premise, not a conclusion.

You can claim that the founders of America were establishing a Christian country, but there really isn't much evidence of that. The constitutionally enshrined establishment and free exercise clauses are pretty clearly promoting general religious neutrality. And when you look at the historical context, things like Jefferson's letter to Dansbury Baptist Church, Madison's letter to Edward Livingston, the Federalist Papers, and so on, that same perspective shines through. Not to say that the Supreme Court is immune to mistakes or reversing course, but religious neutrality is the current precedent with the Lemon, Sherbert, and endorsement tests. So I think you still have some work cut out.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

Oh, goodie. Another round of "everything I don't like is Soviet Russia".

Sounds like you're a Donald Trump fan. He gave accolades to the Chinese Communists for the "strength" that used when they butchered 10,000 unarmed, freedom loving dissidents at Tiananmen Square. And Vlad Putin? Donald just loves the former Colonel of the mass murdering KGB and later the head of the Russian Secret Police. Sigh, if Don had only been around when Joe starved 10 million of his countrymen, I'm sure he'd have wonderful things to say about him.

Many Americans have a vested interest in claiming that their country is Christian, by which they usual mean some sort of diaphanous hodgepodge of socially conservative evangelical denominations in general. And that really is where the line is drawn: no one with any clout actually advocates for a denominational state religion. To me, that just makes it kind of obvious that this debate at its core is actually about how reasonable it is to use the U.S. government as a blunt tool to legally whack at people evangelicals generally disapprove of.

You misspelled a vital word in the above paragraph. You wrote "is" when you should have wrote "was".

1067 pages of evidence.

Some Christians believe in hardcore dominionist or theonomist theologies and actually do advocate for an overtly religious State, but it's more common to for people to think that America's fundamental cultural identity requires some kind of Christianity at its center. But that is a purely ideological belief. It's a premise, not a conclusion.

Returning to Judeo-Christian based laws (against abortion, homosexual, pornography, recreational drug use) and embracing the Christian culture that made America the greatest country on the face of the earth at one time is appealing to many.

 

[the Avatar]

Sounds like you're a Donald Trump fan. He gave accolades to the Chinese Communists for the "strength" that used when they butchered 10,000 unarmed, freedom loving dissidents at Tiananmen Square. And Vlad Putin? Donald just loves the former Colonel of the mass murdering KGB and later the head of the Russian Secret Police. Sigh, if Don had only been around when Joe starved 10 million of his countrymen, I'm sure he'd have wonderful things to say about him.

I don’t see what any of this has to do with what you said earlier.

1067 pages of evidence.

Care to share any of it?

Returning to Judeo-Christian based laws (against abortion, homosexual, pornography, recreational drug use) and embracing the Christian culture that made America the greatest country on the face of the earth at one time is appealing to many.

Except for, I imagine, all the people who have an abortion, gay people, people who consume porn, and recreational drug users.

Oddly enough, gay marriage is only one of the four things you mentioned that was actually outlawed in U.S. when it was founded. The other three were – in order – outlawed in the late 19th-century, never outlawed, and outlawed in the early 20th-century.

I can't help but wonder: when exactly did America stop being the greatest country on the face of the earth?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Keep your bible-thumping out of my government and we won't tax the crap out of your churches.
I'm sick of strangers judging who is and who isn't sufficiently Christian.

AFFIDAVIT: Suspect set house on fire because family didn’t follow Bible​

Mills poured the gasoline on a sofa in the living room and used a lit cloth to start the fire, according to the document.
“Once the sofa caught on fire, he walked outside the house and waited to see if his mother or brother would go outside but they didn’t,” the affidavit reads. “The defendant advised that he waited outside the residence with large rocks in his hands in the event that both his brother and mother had made it out the burning residence.”

 

[aCultureWarrior]

aCultureWarrior said:
Sounds like you're a Donald Trump fan. He gave accolades to the Chinese Communists for the "strength" that used when they butchered 10,000 unarmed, freedom loving dissidents at Tiananmen Square. And Vlad Putin? Donald just loves the former Colonel of the mass murdering KGB and later the head of the Russian Secret Police. Sigh, if Don had only been around when Joe starved 10 million of his countrymen, I'm sure he'd have wonderful things to say about him.

I don’t see what any of this has to do with what you said earlier.

I take every opportunity available to expose Donald Trump for the NYC liberal that he is while gently putting a dagger into the side of leftwing activists like yourself who hate Trump with a passion, not knowing that he is in fact their ally.

aCultureWarrior said:
1067 pages of evidence. [the book "The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Instittuions of the United States].

Care to share any of it?

I was hoping you'd ask, as it just so happens that the book is in a pdf file on the internet for free.
http://files.ccrny.webnode.com/200001540-12aee13a91/Christian_Life_Character_chap1-2 by AV.pdf

I'd love to discuss it after you do your homework assignment. Shall I look for you back here in a couple of days or do you need longer?

aCultureWarrior said:
Returning to Judeo-Christian based laws (against abortion, homosexual, pornography, recreational drug use) and embracing the Christian culture that made America the greatest country on the face of the earth at one time is appealing to many.

Except for, I imagine, all the people who have an abortion, gay people, people who consume porn, and recreational drug users.

It's the job of civil government and a society that cares about their fellow man to help these people out of their culture of death. By passing righteous laws and engaging in a culture of life, these lost souls can be free from their bondage.

Oddly enough, gay marriage is only one of the four things you mentioned that was actually outlawed in U.S. when it was founded. The other three were – in order – outlawed in the late 19th-century, never outlawed, and outlawed in the early 20th-century.

Without a doubt, the Founding Fathers abhorred homosexuality so much that they made it a felony in every Colony and later every State. It was referred as that "infamous crime against nature" and Thomas Jefferson even proposed that those tried and convicted of homosexuality be castrated. Abortion: Quickening was allowed until the baby stirred in the womb. They didn't have modern technology back then to show the baby in the womb growing. Pornography and recreational drug use: It was a Christian culture and cultural mores' dealt with the miniscule population that engaged in such immoral behaviors, i.e. no laws were needed because it was a moral society that was governed by Judeo-Christian doctrine.

I can't help but wonder: when exactly did America stop being the greatest country on the face of the earth?

The child molesting pervert and fake researcher Alfred Kinsey got the ball rolling back in the late 40's when he published the two books titled "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), also known as the Kinsey Reports, as well as the Kinsey scale.

The "sexual revolution" started in the 1960's followed by recreational drug use, laws and culture that allowed/embraced out of wedlock cohabitation and the decriminalization of laws like adultery, homosexuality and of course abortion in the early 1970's. The nucleus of society, the traditional family (married mother and father, children raised under the same roof) was severely damaged and when a nation's nucleus is damaged, so is that nation.

 

[Tigerace117]

“In order to ensure genuine freedom of conscience for the working people, the church is separated from the State, and the school from the church: and freedom of religious and anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens.”
-Article 13 of the general provisions of the constitution of the USSR, adopted in July 1918

In case anyone was wondering where the real "Separation of Church and State" argument originated.

The idea that separation of church and state “originated in the USSR” is moronic. The Founding Fathers knew full well what kind of slaughter had ensued when one religion was able to establish itself as dominant with the support of the state in Europe, and didn’t want that emulated in the US.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The idea that separation of church and state “originated in the USSR” is moronic. The Founding Fathers knew full well what kind of slaughter had ensued when one religion was able to establish itself as dominant with the support of the state in Europe, and didn’t want that emulated in the US.

Ok, I'll play along. Show all of the Hindu Temples and Muslim Mosques that were widespread throughout the land during the Colonial days. LOL...go ahead, waste your time looking on the www.
As the author of this thread showed in the first several posts: The Christian religion dominated America back then and as I mentioned in an earlier post, Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptist Church warned about a State Church (i.e. the Church of England) not about the Christian religion.

 

[Tigerace117]

Ok, I'll play along. Show all of the Hindu Temples and Muslim Mosques that were widespread throughout the land during the Colonial days. LOL...go ahead, waste your time looking on the www.
As the author of this thread showed in the first several posts: The Christian religion dominated America back then and as I mentioned in an earlier post, Jefferson's letter to the Dansbury Baptist Church warned about a State Church (i.e. the Church of England) not about the Christian religion.

I hate to break it to you, but the fact that there weren't all that many Muslims or Hindus here in the US in its earliest days is not, in fact, a sign that the founders were okay with your theocratic fantasies.

The Christian religion’s internal struggles for dominance slaughtered millions in Europe alone. The Founders had no interest in allowing anything similar to happen in the US, no matter how much that hurts your feelings.

 

[The Baron]

This and this are the two links to Cornell Law’s annotated Constitution on the Treason Clauses in Article III Section 3. They worked for me the first time around.

Thank you.

I have to protest because I think that I am countering your argument. You said that the Bible is written into several parts of the Constitution. What I did was examine whether that was the message each verse was communicating using the historical-grammatical hermeneutic that most conservative Protestants in America use and whether the Founders had them in mind when deciding on the Constitution. I found that – in context – none of the verses were saying anything about how it’s better to make a government with separation of powers or advocating for a republic or anything, and that the Founders never talked about those verses when advocating for those sections in the Constitution. That “does not disprove your point”? I’m explicitly showing that the alleged connection simply does not exist. That’s a refutation of your argument!

What I've done is stated specifically--noting my sources as appropriate. Where I've noted a single verse as the inspiration for an idea, you have attempted to discredit my claim by going through entire sections of the Scriptures around the verses I have noted and then claim that none of it applies.

Yet I have never cited the Scriptures you have done such a marvelous job reviewing. I never said any of those Scriptures had anything to do with establishing a government. The only thing I claimed was that very specific verses were the inspiration for ideas.

You appear to have gone to a great deal of trouble to create a strawman. You've not refuted anything.

 

[The Baron]

Many Americans have a vested interest in claiming that their country is Christian, by which they usual mean some sort of diaphanous hodgepodge of socially conservative evangelical denominations in general. And that really is where the line is drawn: no one with any clout actually advocates for a denominational state religion. To me, that just makes it kind of obvious that this debate at its core is actually about how reasonable it is to use the U.S. government as a blunt tool to legally whack at people evangelicals generally disapprove of.

I could not disagree more. I am certainly not aware of anyone wanting to "whack" anyone else.

Perhaps you should consider a far more practical reasoning for embracing our Christian heritage. Allow me to repeat a few quotes...because I know how much you enjoy them.

Noah Webster (1758 - 1843, Founding Father, author of Webster’s Dictionary and textbooks).
“In my view, the Christian Religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
- Reply to David McClure, October 25, 1836

Benjamin Rush (1746-1813, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society)
[T]he only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government is the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible
- Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical, 1798, p. 112.

John Adams (1735-1826, second President of the United States)
The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were…the principles of Christianity…Now I will avow that I then believed, and now believed, that those principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.
- a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration of Independence was approved by Congress

George Washington (1732-1799, “The Father of American”)
“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports... Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.” [emphasis mine]
- Farewell Address, 1796

John McClean (1785-1861, named by President Andrew Jackson to the United States Supreme Court, 1829)
“The morality of the Bible must continue to be the basis of our government. There is no other foundation for free institutions.”
- Letter of November 4, 1852

I could go on...the Founders certainly did

Part I

 

[The Baron]

Part II

But the idea of these Founders is that:
1. the "basis of our government",
2. "the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government",
3. "[t]he general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were"...
...Christianity.

So much so that "the Christian Religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed".

Even the Father of our Country warned that, "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

They believed--correctly--that Christianity was necessary not only to establish our liberties and to keep those liberties and that country could not be maintained without it. As John Adams reasoned...

“[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . .Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
- John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

Look at it this way. As Christianity has faded in this country more laws have become necessary to control the conduct of our citizenry as they are incapable of controlling their own conduct. I read--somewhere--that 100,000 new laws are voted on each year at the various levels of government which are aimed at nothing more than controlling our behavior.

Sadly, all of this was predicted!

Robert Winthrop (1809-1894, 18th Speaker of the House of Representatives)
“All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet. It may do for other countries and other governments to talk about the State supporting religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State.”
- Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852), p. 172 from his "Either by the Bible or the Bayonet.")

Our police forces have been militarized and this was before the rash or riots we've all witnessed over the course of the last year.

The desire is to return to a more moral, safe and wholesome time when even neighbors weren't a threat to each other. Christianity provides that.

Also, am I missing something? It seems like you had a lot more post than I'm seeing right now.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

I hate to break it to you, but the fact that there weren't all that many Muslims or Hindus here in the US in its earliest days is not, in fact, a sign that the founders were okay with your theocratic fantasies.

Your ignorance of what constitutes a theocracy is duly noted, and yeah, Muslims and Hindus were unrepresented in this once great Christian nation weren't they?

https://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/53/85/1358652293-Chart-Religion_of_founding_fathers.jpg

The Christian religion’s internal struggles for dominance slaughtered millions in Europe alone. The Founders had no interest in allowing anything similar to happen in the US, no matter how much that hurts your feelings.

 

[Tigerace117]

Your ignorance of what constitutes a theocracy is duly noted, and yeah, Muslims and Hindus were unrepresented in this once great Christian nation weren't they?

https://cdn.quotesgram.com/img/53/85/1358652293-Chart-Religion_of_founding_fathers.jpg

Yet they had every right to practice without oppression thanks to the separation of church and state despite being few in numbers thanks to the Founders’ wise decision to reject theocratic fantasies like your own.

Christian colonists slaughtered at least twice as many people as Pol Pot in the Congo “Free State” alone.

 

[watsup]

On a completely unrelated subject, another poster began to lecture me that America did not have a Christian heritage (I'm paraphrasing but you get the idea).

Very well. Challenge accepted...

On the Subject of Christianity​

Benjamin Rush (1746-1813, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society)
“…Christianity is the only true and perfect religion; and that in proportion as mankind adopt its principles and obey its precepts they will be wise and happy.”
- Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical, 1798

Alexis De Tocqueville (1805-1859, French diplomat, political scientist, and historian)
“The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible to make them conceive one without the other.”
- Democracy and America

Samuel Adams (1722 - 1803, Founding Father, Signer of the Declaration of Independence)
“Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, or inculcating in their own minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity…in short of leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.”
- Letter to John Adams, October 4, 1790

Benjamin Rush (1746-1813, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society)
“In contemplating the political institutions of the United States, I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them. We profess to be republicans and yet we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government. That is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by the means of the Bible.”
- A Defense of the Use of the Bible as a School Book, 1798

Noah Webster (1758 - 1843, Founding Father, author of Webster’s Dictionary and textbooks).
“In my view, the Christian Religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed…no truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian Religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”
- Reply to David McClure, October 25, 1836

Benjamin Rush (1746-1813, signer of the Declaration of Independence, a founder of the Philadelphia Bible Society)
[T]he only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government is the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible
- Essays, Literary, Moral and Philosophical, 1798, p. 112.

Personal opinions. *YAWN*

 

[watsup]

RIght. The problem is whiteys.

Strawman. No one has said that.

 

[watsup]

Part II

But the idea of these Founders is that:
1. the "basis of our government",
2. "the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government",
3. "[t]he general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were"...
...Christianity.

So much so that "the Christian Religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed".

Even the Father of our Country warned that, "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

They believed--correctly--that Christianity was necessary not only to establish our liberties and to keep those liberties and that country could not be maintained without it. As John Adams reasoned...

“[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . .Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
- John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

Look at it this way. As Christianity has faded in this country more laws have become necessary to control the conduct of our citizenry as they are incapable of controlling their own conduct. I read--somewhere--that 100,000 new laws are voted on each year at the various levels of government which are aimed at nothing more than controlling our behavior.

Sadly, all of this was predicted!

Robert Winthrop (1809-1894, 18th Speaker of the House of Representatives)
“All societies of men must be governed in some way or other. The less they may have of stringent State Government, the more they must have of individual self-government. The less they rely on public law or physical force, the more they must rely on private moral restraint. Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible, or by the bayonet. It may do for other countries and other governments to talk about the State supporting religion. Here, under our own free institutions, it is Religion which must support the State.”
- Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions (Boston: Little, Brown & Co., 1852), p. 172 from his "Either by the Bible or the Bayonet.")

Our police forces have been militarized and this was before the rash or riots we've all witnessed over the course of the last year.

The desire is to return to a more moral, safe and wholesome time when even neighbors weren't a threat to each other. Christianity provides that.

Also, am I missing something? It seems like you had a lot more post than I'm seeing right now.

The general principles upon which the nation was founded have Humanism as their foundation. That’s why the Constitution makes no reference to religion other thsn saying that it may not directly interfere in the governance of the country as per the First Amendment.

 

[the Avatar]

I take every opportunity available to expose Donald Trump for the NYC liberal that he is while gently putting a dagger into the side of leftwing activists like yourself who hate Trump with a passion, not knowing that he is in fact their ally.

You’re assuming a lot about me, you know that?

I was hoping you'd ask, as it just so happens that the book is in a pdf file on the internet for free.

http://files.ccrny.webnode.com/200001540-12aee13a91/Christian_Life_Character_chap1-2 by AV.pdf



I'd love to discuss it after you do your homework assignment. Shall I look for you back here in a couple of days or do you need longer?

Most of the content in the pdf is a forward and an introduction. Both of which made their religious beliefs quite clear, but in terms of actual historical study, it was lacking. The actual first chapters are not much better: no citations or explanations for why the quotes are trustworthy.

Several key statements are made without significant elaboration, such as “The Bible, as the Civil Institutions of the United States divine charter of their political rights… they reverently studied, and on it laid the cornerstone of all their compacts and institutions” and as evidence only has a quote by someone presumably that I can’t find the source of. Another one is “The fathers and founders of the American republic… would be expected to imbue their state papers and their civil constitutions with the spirit and sentiments of the Christian religion. This fact is historic in the civil institutions of the country, and gives to its official documents a Christian feature and influence which belong only to American constitutions and American political annals” but then doesn’t say why that is the case or where I can confirm it. And so on.

As it currently stands, a pastor from the 1860s saying that the founders of the U.S. made a Christian country and you right now saying the founders made a Christian country are equally unconvincing to me if neither provide proper evidence that that is case.

I honestly think the book is more interesting as an examination of religious attitudes in America at the mid-19th century. It’s not comprehensive because the author is notably tolerant of Roman Catholics and bemoans how “Our wrongs to the Indian and the African, continued from the beginning, have … perverted the judgment of the nation in regard to the plainest principles of common humanity and justice”. It actually sounded more enlightened than whoever wrote the preface, who couldn’t even use the term The Civil War without putting it in quotes and whined about how “the War Between the States” ruined the American republic. Aside from that, a few things were kind of overlooked: it completely ignores the Second Great Awakening when it claims America was becoming more secular and claims that public schools are secularizing the youth when public schools at that time were actually being used to promote the general Protestant umbrella in the U.S.

It's the job of civil government and a society that cares about their fellow man to help these people out of their culture of death. By passing righteous laws and engaging in a culture of life, these lost souls can be free from their bondage.

Is that so?

 

[the Avatar]

Without a doubt, the Founding Fathers abhorred homosexuality so much that they made it a felony in every Colony and later every State. It was referred as that "infamous crime against nature" and Thomas Jefferson even proposed that those tried and convicted of homosexuality be castrated. Abortion: Quickening was allowed until the baby stirred in the womb. They didn't have modern technology back then to show the baby in the womb growing. Pornography and recreational drug use: It was a Christian culture and cultural mores' dealt with the miniscule population that engaged in such immoral behaviors, i.e. no laws were needed because it was a moral society that was governed by Judeo-Christian doctrine.

Jefferson was recommending a reduced penalty that was opposed in the Virginia legislature. Although it’s worth pointing out that Baron von Steuben and other staff officers in George Washington’s army were gay men who received pensions for their service, so there is clearly a persistent question of enforcement of those laws.

The nature of the abortion debate in the 1800s was quite different and was occurring within a movement of medical reform anti-quackery, but it was still common and more importantly not something that was outlawed in the U.S. based on the founder’s belief that they were making a Christian country.

It’s kind of adorable that you think Americans didn’t really consume pornography or drugs back then. Because … they totally did. The use and abuse of alcohol, tobacco, and caffeine was quite widespread in the early U.S. Some contemporary recreational drugs didn’t really exist at the time, but ones that did were not restricted or banned for decades, until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Even as late as 1906 in the Pure Foods and Drugs Act, drugs like cannabis, morphine, and cocaine merely had to be labeled as present and in what amount in medicines that could be legally bought. And considering the number of people who were brought to court over charges of obscenity – whether it was Fanny Hill or printed materials imported from France, or photos when those things were invented – kind of proves that there was clearly a market out there at the time that only got bigger as the Victorian era progressed. Either way, neither were things that the original founders cared to legislate against. This contemporary idea of what the laws of a Christian U.S. government would look like doesn’t really correspond with what early American laws were actually like.

The child molesting pervert and fake researcher Alfred Kinsey got the ball rolling back in the late 40's when he published the two books titled "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male (1948) and Sexual Behavior in the Human Female (1953), also known as the Kinsey Reports, as well as the Kinsey scale.


The "sexual revolution" started in the 1960's followed by recreational drug use, laws and culture that allowed/embraced out of wedlock cohabitation and the decriminalization of laws like adultery, homosexuality and of course abortion in the early 1970's. The nucleus of society, the traditional family (married mother and father, children raised under the same roof) was severely damaged and when a nation's nucleus is damaged, so is that nation.

You kind of seem to have it out about other people’s sexual behavior.

Anyway, I’m sure the late 1940s were great for some Americans, but there was plenty of not-great things happening to other Americans too. I would probably reevaluate how I looked at history if I thought America is not the greatest country anymore, but it sure was the greatest back in the 1940s when it also had strongly racialized anti-immigration laws, segregation, forced assimilation of First Nation peoples, the Second Red Scare, and a strong dose of sexism. A good many recent immigrants, racial minorities, and women would probably disagree with the idea that America is becoming a consistently worse place to live in than it was decades ago.

 

[the Avatar]

I understand what you're saying. But the reality is that during our colonial days and the early days of our founding, there was much debate on the role the church could / should play. This was based not because there were so many different religions in America at the time, it was because there were so many Christian denominations at the time.

The book I am currently reading about our founding tells the story of a debate in the Continental Congress concerning the wisdom of allowing prayer to be said prior to their daily deliberations. The concern was whether a clergyman could be found that would not be objectionable to the Presbyterians or the Quakers or the Anglicans or the...it goes on and on.

Spoiler alert! They were able to agree on a clergyman and daily prayers ensued.

The book also discussed the easing of religious test for holding office. It seems that, at first, office holders had to affirm to have certain beliefs. Later these restrictions were eased to allow Jews to hold office, as well. The reasoning was that if you had two people running for office, a Jewish man may be far more trustworthy than a Christian colleague and voter may wish to support the Jewish man. I can't remember if this applied to early federal law or the laws of certain states but you get the idea.

Well, you’ve piqued my interest. I can’t promise that I’ll get to it in the near future, but I’d like to know about any books or other material about general religious practice in early U.S. societies that you’ve come across.

I'll need a source for that.

As the distinction between as and whereas is negligible, you can usually find this kind of terminology in bills and laws from your county or state legislature.

However, it does say (unedited):

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

To paraphrase, it would say: "As America is not in any way a Christian nation that has any problem with Islam and as America has never been a part of any war or act of hostility against any Islamic nation then we agree that there is no emerging differences in religion that would disrupt the harmony between our two nations".

Okay, I think I finally see what you’re saying. The way that you describe it is that the statement America doesn’t have any problem with Islam is modifying our understanding of the statement that America is not in any sense a Christian nation. Effectively, America is not a Christian nation in the sense that it is not overtly anti-Islam.

I don’t like arguing about grammar, but I think that your reading of the text kind of rests on the use of grammar. Like I said previously, each statement is separated by either a semicolon or a dash. It’s not totally clear which one is used in the original, but if it was semicolons, that means that they independent clauses of related but separate ideas put into a single sentence. It would be unorthodox to use a dash as a parenthetical for each of the three clauses because they all have equal weight in the sentence and are all formatted in the same way (independent clauses starting with “as”), so even then the dash would be operating more like an in-between of a comma and a period to note a change in thought. When I say “equal weight” in all three clauses, what I mean is that a full idea is expressed even if only one clause is used, indicating three separate rationales offered in a list:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion… it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
“… as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen … it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
“… as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

 

[the Avatar]

What I've done is stated specifically--noting my sources as appropriate. Where I've noted a single verse as the inspiration for an idea, you have attempted to discredit my claim by going through entire sections of the Scriptures around the verses I have noted and then claim that none of it applies.

Yet I have never cited the Scriptures you have done such a marvelous job reviewing. I never said any of those Scriptures had anything to do with establishing a government. The only thing I claimed was that very specific verses were the inspiration for ideas.

You appear to have gone to a great deal of trouble to create a strawman. You've not refuted anything.

Well, how could the founders have possibly been inspired by those verses if they never mentioned them in their rationale for why they made those parts of the Constitution and the verses themselves clearly have a different meaning? It’s not like James Madison said, “I chose these requirements to convict someone of treason based on the Bible”, and it’s not like the Mosaic law was a republican government; the Bible explicitly credits the institution and ultimate ruler of it to be Gd. It was the people abandoning the same laws that the prophets spoke against. The prophets called for a moral reform, not a political one, so it’s not like they advocated for republican governments either.

Ancient Israel is clearly a pretty different system of government than the Enlightenment ideas of separation of powers, checks and balances, a republic, a bill of rights, and being able to change a law. The laws of ancient Israel led to something that led to something that eventually reached Enlightenment Europe in a very narrow and winding path, but so many other factors were present and other beliefs developed and were incorporated in that the words of the Bible can only be an indirect influence. It is true that early Protestants did play a role in popularizing our modern idea of a republic that most countries now have – and I find that fascinating – but it’s kind of a misrepresentation of both European history and what the Bible says when its reduced to “Bible -> America” with nothing else in between. The developments in between the two are crucial to understanding why exactly the U.S. was made the way it was.

I could not disagree more. I am certainly not aware of anyone wanting to "whack" anyone else.

Perhaps you should consider a far more practical reasoning for embracing our Christian heritage. Allow me to repeat a few quotes...because I know how much you enjoy them.

Oh, come on. Pretty much every right-wing, non-libertarian evangelical wants to use the government to stamp out other people’s sins. Why they think governments are in any way cut out to actually succeed at that, I don’t know.

But the idea of these Founders is that:
1. the "basis of our government",
2. "the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government",
3. "[t]he general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence were"...
...Christianity.

So much so that "the Christian Religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government, ought to be instructed".

Even the Father of our Country warned that, "reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

They believed--correctly--that Christianity was necessary not only to establish our liberties and to keep those liberties and that country could not be maintained without it.

Believe me, over the course of this thread I have been made acutely aware of how highly many early Americans thought of their Christian public. Almost everyone was some kind of Christian in the social sense – although I think Jesus said that not everyone who claims to follow him truly does so. Even then, there were non-Christian first nation peoples who weren’t citizens, a small Jewish population, and an even smaller Muslim population. They were a small percent then, but hey, they’re still a small percent today. However, a government made of Christians and a Christian government are very different things. The founders of the U.S. government had the legal prerogative to make whatever kind of religious government they wanted and they elected to make one that was pluralistic and officially neutral, and then allow the unofficial religious status quo to go with the public.