Was America founded on Judeo-Christian Values or Secular Values? (1 Viewer)

[Topsez]

I think America was founded on Judeo-Christian Values based on the following…

There is nothing in the constitution that would indicate otherwise. There is nothing in the constitution relating to Secular values…

Well actually I have more reasons but research as you will and you will only find that separation of church and state was pushed by politics in the 1950’s by the Republican Party of all folks concerned by the influx of Catholics and their interest in politics. More recently the left has aligned with the court and others that the founders were secular and a wall was intended but it is all smoke and mirrors...

In this discussion we are speaking of the US Federal Government but if someone has information on state governments supporting the position then by all means present it.

So … was America founded on Judeo-Christian Values or Secular Values?

 

[Iriemon]

It's certainly an interesting question, tho' this topic was recently discussed in detail in this thread:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/churc...ed-judeo-christian-values-secular-values.html

 

[dsanthony]

Many, probably most, of the founding fathers were Christians. Many were deists. I believe all recognized the role of a "public religion" in keeping society together. Whenever leftists have tried to remove religion from the public sphere, notably the French Revolution and 20th century Communist movements, the results are disasterous.

Washington, a deist, took the first oath of office on the bible, as has every president since. Whether the term "god" or "creator" was used, there was a recognition of providence.

Apart from the fouding fathers, there is no doubt that the American people, then and now, overwhelmingly identify themselves as christian. No serious person is calling for a theocracy, but the rights of expression of 85 percent of the people should not be trampled to preserve the feelings of 15 percent.

Liberals should be honest that their beliefs would lead to the removal of "in god we trust" from our currenty... the removal of bibles in oaths from the presidency to courts... the changing of city names from providence to los angeles to san antonio to corpus christi... If they would be that honest, I'd still work to defeat them, but at least I'd marginally respect them.

 

[Topsez]

It's certainly an interesting question, tho' this topic was recently discussed in detail in this thread:


http://www.debatepolitics.com/churc...ed-judeo-christian-values-secular-values.html

Thanks! I'm new here so those who debated in the former post will have a lot of ammunition... I debated this same subject on another site and had over 9,000 hits and I think I came out on top...

Many, probably most, of the founding fathers were Christians. Many were deists. I believe all recognized the role of a "public religion" in keeping society together. Whenever leftists have tried to remove religion from the public sphere, notably the French Revolution and 20th century Communist movements, the results are disasterous.

Washington, a deist, took the first oath of office on the bible, as has every president since. Whether the term "god" or "creator" was used, there was a recognition of providence.

Apart from the fouding fathers, there is no doubt that the American people, then and now, overwhelmingly identify themselves as christian. No serious person is calling for a theocracy, but the rights of expression of 85 percent of the people should not be trampled to preserve the feelings of 15 percent.

Liberals should be honest that their beliefs would lead to the removal of "in god we trust" from our currenty... the removal of bibles in oaths from the presidency to courts... the changing of city names from providence to los angeles to san antonio to corpus christi... If they would be that honest, I'd still work to defeat them, but at least I'd marginally respect them.

Read Washingtons farewell address in full and decide if he was a Deist.

Did you know that the Salem witch trials were judged by a graduate of Harvard Law School?

Just a question... How many decades did MA remain a theoracy after the founding of our nation?

 

[Billo_Really]

Religion has no part in government. Period. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. You cannot legislate morality. Got it!

This is a secular nation. Always has been. Always will be. Our founding fathers new the dangers of mixing religion and politics. No one is ever ready for the Spanish Inquisition. Although, it seems, some people forget.

 

[Tashah]

IMHO there is no doubt... the foundation of the United States is primarily constructed of Judeo-Christian values.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Tashah:
IMHO there is no doubt... the foundation of the United States is primarily constructed of Judeo-Christian values.

We are a melting pot of just about everything.

 

[Tashah]

We are a melting pot of just about everything.

Now we are, but not at the birth.

 

[Iriemon]

IMHO there is no doubt... the foundation of the United States is primarily constructed of Judeo-Christian values.

When I read the Bible and never found discussions of conceptions like representative government, freedom of speech and religion or other basic human rights, checks and balances, or the other conceptions we associate with the US constitution and the American form of Government. Most of the Governments identified in the Bible are monarchies, and I didn't discern any real biblical message criticizing this form of government relative to a replubican democracy.

When I read the US Constitution I found absent anything resembling the 10 commandments, which are is the fundamental law of the judeo-Christian Goc, and the Muslem one too, I believe.

About the only common things I have been able to tell are that there are references to judges deciding conflicts and applying certain laws, and I suppose you could argue that our legal system as some roots from judeo-Christianity. Tho' I don't thing the concept of judges acting in this capacity was unique among the jewish folk in antiquity.

On the other hand, one can find many other sources of ideas for American democracy, from the foundings of democracy in Hellenic Greece to the Enlightenment.

 

[ngdawg]

Thanks! I'm new here so those who debated in the former post will have a lot of ammunition... I debated this same subject on another site and had over 9,000 hits and I think I came out on top...

Read Washingtons farewell address in full and decide if he was a Deist.

Did you know that the Salem witch trials were judged by a graduate of Harvard Law School?

Just a question... How many decades did MA remain a theoracy after the founding of our nation?

Seeing as how the Salem Witch Trials were in 1692 and Harvard Law School was founded in 1817, that's a pretty neat trick.

 

[Billo_Really]

Originally posted by Iriemon:
When I read the Bible and never found discussions of conceptions like representative government, freedom of speech and religion or other basic human rights, checks and balances, or the other conceptions we associate with the US constitution and the American form of Government. Most of the Governments identified in the Bible are monarchies, and I didn't discern any real biblical message criticizing this form of government relative to a replubican democracy.

When I read the US Constitution I found absent anything resembling the 10 commandments, which are is the fundamental law of the judeo-Christian Goc, and the Muslem one too, I believe.

About the only common things I have been able to tell are that there are references to judges deciding conflicts and applying certain laws, and I suppose you could argue that our legal system as some roots from judeo-Christianity. Tho' I don't thing the concept of judges acting in this capacity was unique among the jewish folk in antiquity.

On the other hand, one can find many other sources of ideas for American democracy, from the foundings of democracy in Hellenic Greece to the Enlightenment.

Good one, Irie, good one!

 

[hipsterdufus]

Let's look at the 10 Commandments and see how many are upheld by our constitution:

1. I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. Thou shalt have no other gods before Me..."

No - We are free to worship, or not worship as we please

2. Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above...

No- Hell, our country is obsessed with American Idol. Say no more.


3. Thou shalt not swear falsely by the name of the LORD..."

Jesus H Ch Rist no.


4. Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy

No - although football is becoming a religion.


5.Thou shalt honor your father and your mother...

A worthy goal, but not mandated by law. No


6. Thou shalt not murder

No: Any war proves that one wrong.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

Another worthy goal, but not mandated by law. No

8. Thou shalt not steal.

The first yes!

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against your neighbor

No

10. Thou shalt not covet your neighbor's house...

No

So it's one out of ten...

 

[Topsez]

Seeing as how the Salem Witch Trials were in 1692 and Harvard Law School was founded in 1817, that's a pretty neat trick.

You should go to this site and enter a correction... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stoughton_(Massachusetts)#Life_account

How many decades did MA remain a theoracy after the founding of the Federal Government... They even taxed for the church...

 

[Topsez]

Religion has no part in government. Period. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. You cannot legislate morality. Got it!

This is a secular nation. Always has been. Always will be. Our founding fathers new the dangers of mixing religion and politics. No one is ever ready for the Spanish Inquisition. Although, it seems, some people forget.

I never suggested religion has part of the government ... I said it was founded on Judeo-Christian Values... Actually, it was founded on Conservative Values... Social Darwinism.

There is nothing in the constitution that separates the constitution form Christian values. In fact, the constitution adopted Common Law or the law understood by everyone at the time... brought from Europe this law reflects the values of the population.

 

[ngdawg]

You should go to this site and enter a correction... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stoughton_(Massachusetts)#Life_account

How many decades did MA remain a theoracy after the founding of the Federal Government... They even taxed for the church...

Why should I make a correction to Wikipedia? It's not where I got my information. You made the assertion, you should make sure your facts are accurate. He got a degree in Theology, btw....not law.

 

[Topsez]

When I read the Bible and never found discussions of conceptions like representative government, freedom of speech and religion or other basic human rights, checks and balances, or the other conceptions we associate with the US constitution and the American form of Government. Most of the Governments identified in the Bible are monarchies, and I didn't discern any real biblical message criticizing this form of government relative to a replubican democracy.

When I read the US Constitution I found absent anything resembling the 10 commandments, which are is the fundamental law of the judeo-Christian Goc, and the Muslem one too, I believe.

About the only common things I have been able to tell are that there are references to judges deciding conflicts and applying certain laws, and I suppose you could argue that our legal system as some roots from judeo-Christianity. Tho' I don't thing the concept of judges acting in this capacity was unique among the jewish folk in antiquity.

On the other hand, one can find many other sources of ideas for American democracy, from the foundings of democracy in Hellenic Greece to the Enlightenment.

If the US Federal Government wasn't founded on Christian values then why the the congress assist in publishing the Christian Bible? See this link http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/1st.htm

The first English Bible printed in this country, as well as the first Bible to be recommended to the people by the Congress of the United States, was relatively small in dimensions. It measured but five and five-eighths inches by three and one-eighth inches. Printed in brevier type on American-made paper, it contained 726 leaves (1,452 pages). It is considered to be an excellent piece of printing with remarkably few divided words and with pages unmarred by "rivers" of blank space.

If America was founded a secular nation then why didn't they use a secular calendar and restart the year to 0000 in stead of using the Church calendar? After all during the Reign of Terror in France in 1793 France restarted the calendar at 0000 and created a ten day week.

Why are "Blue Laws", laws that limit activity on Sundays, legal if the government doesn't endorse Christian Values?

I see nothing secular about the constitution, zero, nada, nich... Social Darwinism backed by Christian values... Did you know the federalist fought against the ammendments you refer to that give the indivual rights? Your hero's, the givers of inidvidual rights were the Anti-Federalists, which were overflowing with bible thumpers.

 

[Topsez]

Why should I make a correction to Wikipedia? It's not where I got my information. You made the assertion, you should make sure your facts are accurate. He got a degree in Theology, btw....not law.

You assert I stated wrong and Wikipedia and I state you are wrong... Since Wikipedia is a user updated version of the truth as posted by users, if you want to be in the majority you should update it to be challenged by the person that posted the information I quoted. Otherwise, in the Airborne we would just say you're talking out of your fourth point of contact...

 

[ngdawg]

Oh, how I love when people edit a link to serve their own purpose.:mrgreen:
Let's look at what YOUR own link is saying, shall we?
The war for independence was still going on. The Constitution came 10 years later.
In the fight for independence, the leaders of this emerging country wanted little or nothing to do with having to have goods shipped from and taxed by England. Establishing a printing of the bible here in the colonies would avoid having to subsidize the king.It recommended, therefore, that Congress "order the committee of commerce to import 20,000 bibles from Holland, Scotland or elsewhere into the different ports of the states of the Union."

When the motion carried by the narrowest of margins, seven to six, a subsequent motion was immediately passed ordering "that the consideration thereof be postponed to Saturday next." However, since nothing more is known concerning this resolution, it is doubted whether the beleaguered Congress ever took steps to effect its implementation.
As for the calendar: September 2, 1752, was a great day in the history of sleep.

That Wednesday evening, millions of British subjects in England and the colonies went peacefully to sleep and did not wake up until twelve days later. Behind this feat of narcoleptic prowess was not some revolutionary hypnotic technique or miraculous pharmaceutical discovered in the West Indies. It was, rather, the British Calendar Act of 1751, which declared the day after Wednesday the second to be Thursday the fourteenth.

Prior to that cataleptic September evening, the official British calendar differed from that of continental Europe by eleven days—that is, September 2 in London was September 13 in Paris, Lisbon, and Berlin. The discrepancy had sprung from Britain's continued use of the Julian calendar, which had been the official calendar of Europe since its invention by Julius Caesar (after whom it was named) in 45 B.C.

Caesar's calendar, which consisted of eleven months of 30 or 31 days and a 28-day February (extended to 29 days every fourth year), was actually quite accurate: it erred from the real solar calendar by only 11½ minutes a year. After centuries, though, even a small inaccuracy like this adds up. By the sixteenth century, it had put the Julian calendar behind the solar one by 10 days.

In 1582, Pope Gregory XIII ordered the advancement of the calendar by 10 days and introduced a new corrective device to curb further error: century years such as 1700 or 1800 would no longer be counted as leap years, unless they were (like 1600 or 2000) divisible by 400.

If somewhat inelegant, this system is undeniably effective, and is still in official use in the United States. The Gregorian calendar year differs from the solar year by only 26 seconds—accurate enough for most mortals, since this only adds up to one day's difference every 3,323 years.Source
Much like the advent of time zones, the Gregorian calendar we use today enabled the world to be on a consistent time line. France does not now use a 10 day week, no one does. And except for the traditions of cultures such as Hebrew and Chinese, which celebrate their New Years of old, the Gregorian calendar is what is universally recognized. This is not a religious order of submission as much as an organization of then-chaotic timekeeping.
As for Blue Laws: there are none in the Federal level. States are allowed to make their own though.

 

[Topsez]

Much like the advent of time zones, the Gregorian calendar we use today enabled the world to be on a consistent time line. France does not now use a 10 day week, no one does. And except for the traditions of cultures such as Hebrew and Chinese, which celebrate their New Years of old, the Gregorian calendar is what is universally recognized. This is not a religious order of submission as much as an organization of then-chaotic timekeeping.
As for Blue Laws: there are none in the Federal level. States are allowed to make their own though.

Where do you see secular in the constitution?

The constitution clearly states no state laws will contradict the superior law of the federal government so how did MA remain a theoracy... for how many decades?... after the ratification of the federal constitution? If the US government doesn't support Judeo-Christian Values then why not end MA's theoracy and blue laws?

Why do we have laws that reflect Christian values instead of Islamic or other methods of punishment? We don't cut off hands for stealing... we do have blue laws so one must conclude we, or the US federal constitution addopted the "values" of Christianity.

To be clear when our nation was established it was established a a Social Darwinism state supported by the idea that compassion for the weak and losers would be provided by the family, church and community... No social protections are in the constitution... where do you find the basis for secular government? Reference please.

Who could vote after the ratification of the Federal Constitution? In the southern states each state recognized voters could be counted on the fingers and toes of one person, in the north restricted to property owners. Rich white guy who pecked his way to the top sets the rules... State voters votes can be canceled by the rich white guys at the state electorial college to make sure it stayed that way... Social Darwinsim... not secular.

 

[Thelost1]

The lack of a basis for a religious government causes us to fall back onto the base of a secular government.
i.e.
god-god=no god

 

[ngdawg]

Why are you asking me? I didn't say anything about secular, nonsecular, whatevah...you quote me about the Gregorian calendar then ask that stuff? Good grief....put the doobie down, man...

 

[Topsez]

Why are you asking me? I didn't say anything about secular, nonsecular, whatevah...you quote me about the Gregorian calendar then ask that stuff? Good grief....put the doobie down, man...

My bad... I just want someone interested in the thread to give a basis for the value foundings of our nation.

I just wonder how we came from a clearly Social Darwinism conservative system of capitalism backed by a community of Christians that would support the failures of Darwinism to the current status where the ACLU is suing the government for Crosses on government properrty.

The period of enlightenment had differing impacts on different nations and I agree secular thought was around in America but not at a level to match the overwhelming support for Christianity.

I'm just fishing here waiting for a bite as to why anyone would conclude the government was founded on secular values... Why would seculars, at the time, that believed all men are created by "nature's God" include slavery and indentured servants in the government? Why would a constitution be written clearly giving the richest of the rich the final decision making be considered secular and not Social Darwinism? Look, the constitution says the state electorial college have better judgment than adverage citizens... gave the prez the right to dismiss or call congress into action at his/her will... where is secular?

 

[ngdawg]

Well...the word 'history' comes to mind....
It's been drilled into every child's head pretty much that the first settlers here came to escape 'religious persecution', ie; they didn't want to be told how to worship. Then, of course, they did the same thing they were 'escaping' from, hence the Salem fiasco and warring with the original inhabitants....
It's been pointed out that, contrary to some arguments, the Constitution does NOT follow the ten commandments. There's been some articles floating around that it actually follows England's Magna Carta.
The fact is, the minds of those here 300 years ago are extremely different than those now-'God' was a fact of life, not something to be questioned and researched. There was an obvious caste system that favored the rich and white men of the time, giving them credence and power; women were subservient (if a woman was desiring 'divorce', she relinquished all rights to property and her children, well into the 19th century). In fact, women were not allowed to own property-upon widowhood, that went to either male children or the male siblings of the deceased.
It's mindset, nothing more. As we became more aware of what was wrong, right or unfair, things got changed. Slavery was the norm-it was abolished; women were proven to be more than second-class breedmares-they gained more rights.
It's perfectly logical to, because of what we now know, to question why it was done the way it was 300 years ago. By knowing that 300 years ago, men simply thought differently, you get a different perspective-you can't use today's knowledge and make it work back then-you have to abandon it.

 

[Topsez]

Well...the word 'history' comes to mind....
It's been drilled into every child's head pretty much that the first settlers here came to escape 'religious persecution', ie; they didn't want to be told how to worship. Then, of course, they did the same thing they were 'escaping' from, hence the Salem fiasco and warring with the original inhabitants....
It's been pointed out that, contrary to some arguments, the Constitution does NOT follow the ten commandments. There's been some articles floating around that it actually follows England's Magna Carta.
The fact is, the minds of those here 300 years ago are extremely different than those now-'God' was a fact of life, not something to be questioned and researched. There was an obvious caste system that favored the rich and white men of the time, giving them credence and power; women were subservient (if a woman was desiring 'divorce', she relinquished all rights to property and her children, well into the 19th century). In fact, women were not allowed to own property-upon widowhood, that went to either male children or the male siblings of the deceased.
It's mindset, nothing more. As we became more aware of what was wrong, right or unfair, things got changed. Slavery was the norm-it was abolished; women were proven to be more than second-class breedmares-they gained more rights.
It's perfectly logical to, because of what we now know, to question why it was done the way it was 300 years ago. By knowing that 300 years ago, men simply thought differently, you get a different perspective-you can't use today's knowledge and make it work back then-you have to abandon it.

I wish I hadn’t brought up the Salem Witch trials since it happened well before the founding of the nation… I’ll just say these trials were based on religion. Regardless, the constitution did take into account these trials when enacting the cruel and unusual punishment to regulate the common law of the time.

The reason I insist the federal constitution was based on Social Darwinism is for the reasons you clearly point out above… Traditions of women’s place in society were based on common law… that has evolved since mankind became somewhat civilized… A father “gives away” his daughter at the wedding… old meaning is that the daughter now must support the chosen husbands parents verses her parents during old age thus she takes that family name. The same rules exist in Korea because there are no government Social Support programs… compassion is up to the family, church and community under this concept of Social Darwinism. In Korea in 1969 I would travel to Seoul by train once a month to get away from the stench of human waste and thatch covered mud hut villages and on each trip a minimum of three unscheduled stops were caused by old men walking in front of the train… These were the other victims of the Vietnam War since their son, that would provide for them in elder years was killed in battle… the church or community had zero compassion for these old people… Therefore, men placed more importance of having as son and minimized females.

Social Darwinism Conservative movement is religious based and desires slow change in culture while Secular Progressive movement desires instant change and minimizes religion. Based on the concept of government being Social Darwinism Conservative supported by the Judeo-Christian Values America flourished because the church and people could sort out which citizens in the culture deserved compassion and which were just lazy losers… Secular on the other hand desires state prop up of all citizens regardless of work ethics or inability to be a productive member of society.

Much of the doom for the American Indians was based on the individual states thinking ... hey now that the king is out of the picture everything west of me is mine... and then there was the debt from fighting the revolution, America was bankrupt.

 

[ngdawg]

It's important to realize that this so-called 'Social Darwinism' is a label given after the fact; it was not the specific intent of the time, so I don't put it in that context. Men ruled, women schooled, that was then.
It's also important to remember that, while we have the official status of 'founding fathers', this country came to be over a much longer period of time than just between 1775-1787, so mentalities, law-making, cultural development, etc., all transpired over time to get to that point and once things fell into place, the US came to be. In fact, Washington was not our very first president, but was the first elected under the newly formed independent country, the first elected under our Constitution. Before him, there was an assigned president, John Hanson, chosen by congress.
John Hanson