NLBS #48: The United States Is Not, And Never Was, A Christian Nation

a reply to: Verum1quaere

Here is another false quote.

No.

This is a line from a 1956 piece in The Virginian that was about Patrick Henry, not by him. The text of this item read:

“I have now disposed of all my property to my family. There is one thing more I wish I could give them, and that is the Christian Religion. If they had that and I had not given them one shilling they would have been rich; and if they had not that and I had given them all the world, they would be poor.”

Patrick Henry, Virginia,
His Will

There is an insidious campaign of false propaganda being waged today, to the effect that our country is not a Christian country but a religious one—that it was not founded on Christianity but on freedom of religion.

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by ‘religionists’ but by Christians–not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.

In the spoken and written words of our noble founders and forefathers, we find symbolic expressions of their Christian faith. The above quotation from the will of Patrick Henry is a notable example.

How this came to be attributed to Patrick Henry, despite the third-person mention of him as a noble founder and forefather, is not clear. My personal guess is that somebody along the line mistook the “above quotation” as referring to the sentence that immediately preceeded the phrase, rather than to the actual excerpt given at the beginning of the piece. That’s only a guess, however. Mendacity knows no rules. I think it’s entirely possible that somebody just liked the phrase, attributed it to Patrick Henry because the name was handy, and sent it on its merry way.

Why anybody would accept it as Henry’s is equally puzzling. The language is twentieth-century. The word “religionists,” for example. In Patrick Henry’s time it meant a fanatic, a person obsessed with religion; not as here people of different religions (or something like that). The piece looks back on the founding of “this great nation” (would Patrick Henry really have used that phrase?) as something in the past, and it seems to know that “peoples of other faiths” are going to be “afforded asylum, prosperity and freedom of worship” in it. It’s wrong historically, and it’s wrong linguistically.

As far as I can determine the first person to attribute this saying to Patrick Henry was minister David Barton in his book The Myth of Separation (1988). (Chris Rodda calls my attention to David Barton’s footnote crediting the quotation to “a 1988 book called ‘God’s Providence in American History’ by Steve C. Dawson.”) Barton has since disavowed it, though he suggested that it was possible that Patrick Henry’s uncle really said it (no evidence for this assertion provided). It continues to be quoted as Henry’s in many books and on innumerable websites.

Fake History

Looks like your quotes originate from David Bartons books. As you can see he is an unreliable source and has even disavowed his claimed quotes.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

If the U.S.of A. is not a christian nation then why do some surveys show that in the vicinity of 75% of Americans identify themselves as christian?

It has to do with the history of how the USA was started.

But when it was formally "established" by those who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it was FIRMLY established that the USA would NOT be a theocracy like England was.

a reply to: MoreCowbell

Did "the guy" ever even really exist? Nearly everything he is said to ever have uttered was said by someone else first, and no one seems to follow those words anyway, especially Christians.

I'm not impressed. As a role model or the "Lord of Our Nation" he fails miserably.

the number one rule in Christianity is to Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself. I doubt the founding fathers disagreed with this concept. Bash organized religion all you want, but don't ignorantly bash Christianity.

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

I can see why there is a confusion. Too many people are confused about this thread. Usually when Christians say this is and was a Christian nation they mean something else.

If the majority of people were or are Christians then you can say it's a nation of Christians though that would be inaccurate.

When someone talks about Islam nations what do you think it means? Be honest.

The word Christian is an adjective when applied to nation. "Christian nation." The nation itself isn't Christian. The nation may have Christians in the majority but the nation ITSELF isn't Christian.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Jobeycool
The very first act of Congress was passing out bibles...

False.

No, Mr. Beck, Congress Did Not Print a Bible for the Use of Schools

There are many versions of this story floating around, all worded to mislead that Congress either requested the printing of the Bibles, granted Aitken permission to print them, contracted him to print them, paid for the printing, or had Bibles printed for the use of schools. Congress did none of these things. All they did was grant one of several requests made by Aitken by having their chaplains examine his work, and allowing him to publish their resolution stating that, based on the chaplains' report, they were satisfied that his edition was accurate. The words "a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools" are taken from a letter written by Aitken,(8) not the resolution of Congress.

The actual resolution is edited in various ways. The purpose of this editing is to omit that Congress also had a secular reason for recommending Aitken's Bible, and, in most cases, to turn the resolution into a recommendation of the Bible itself, rather than a recommendation of the accuracy of Aitken's work.

Doctored resolution for Christian apologists:

"Congress 'highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion ... in this country, and ... they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States.'"

The ACTUAL resolution in question:

Whereupon, Resolved, That the United States in Congress assembled, highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country, and being satisfied from the above report, of his care and accuracy in the execution of the work, they recommend this edition of the Bible to the inhabitants of the United States, and hereby authorise him to publish this recommendation in the manner he shall think proper.(9)

The secular benefit of this resolution, omitted by Hutson and others, was that it acknowledged "an instance of the progress of arts in this country." Publicizing the accuracy of this Bible was a great way for Congress to promote the American printing industry.

Statue of Moses at the Supreme court.
Bibles scripture all up the steps on the Washington Monument.The steps are no longer used to preserve the history.

National Capital

The representations of Moses described above both present him in a context in which he is depicted as one of several historical exemplars of lawgivers, not as a religious figure. (This is why, for example, the Supreme Court of the United States in 2003 rejected appeals to overturn a decision ordering the removal of a monument to the Ten Commandments from an Alabama courthouse: they ruled that the monument did not present the Ten Commandments in a context other than as quotations of Biblical verse and was therefore deemed an unconstitutional state endorsement of religion.)
The depiction referred to here is a sculpture entitled "Justice the Guardian of Liberty" by Hermon A. McNeil, which appears on the eastern pediment of the Supreme Court building. (The eastern pediment is the back of the Supreme Court building, so this sculpture is not something one would see "walking up the steps to the building which houses the Supreme Court." The front entrance is on the western side.) The sculpture was intended to be a symbolic representation of three of the Eastern civilizations from which our laws were derived, personified by the figures of three great lawgivers: Moses, Confucius, and Solon (surrounded by several allegorical figures representing a variety of legal themes):

McNeil described the symbolism of his work thusly:
Law as an element of civilization was normally and naturally derived or inherited in this country from former civilizations. The "Eastern Pediment" of the Supreme Court Building suggests therefore the treatment of such fundamental laws and precepts as are derived from the East. Moses, Confucius and Solon are chosen as representing three great civilizations and form the central group of this Pediment.

The two other lawgiver figures (Confucius and Solon) are not "facing [the] one in the middle" (i.e., Moses) as claimed above — all three of the lawgivers are depicted in full frontal views, facing forward. (The allegorical figures who flank the three lawgivers are indeed facing towards the middle, but they are looking in the direction of all three men, not just Moses.) The two tablets Moses holds in his arms are blank, without inscription.

Not one single President in U.S. history is an atheist and call themselmes deist and christians.

That has more to do with Christians being intolerant voting wise towards non-Christians. It isn't illegal, thus we have only had Christian Presidents. Heck the backlash for the only Catholic President we ever had was HUGE.

Got christian history fighting with atheist in America.

Well if Christians wouldn't invent their own history this wouldn't be going on.

Somehow we have zero christian heritage born out of this country from christian men and women.

That's because your heritage is in the middle east. This is a secular nation that just happens to contain a lot of Christians not a Christian nation.

Thrainwreck of stupdity continues to get more and more laughable.

It certainly does. Your post is a good example of it.

The fact they where trying to make and print bibles is the very first act they did..DDDDUHHHH......Also your arguing with history of christians heritage that was born and raised in the United Sates.This simple common sense stuff should tell you the background is mostly Christians that rasied the country to where it is now.You should be happy the moderate christians moderated the world.If you was like this in a Islam nation you are dead or hanged or jailed.
Every country or nation on earth is simply the mirror image of what they think and teach.So that would mean your whining about christians in the United States is all the more reason it is mostly christian.
What is strange is you can listen to some atheist fuss and whine and you sit back and they argue to christians all through America that this nation was not founded from christians.Atheist on arguments prove they are wrong without you needing to even debate or say a word back to them.

a reply to: Jobeycool

It's a misnomer that Islamic countries are horrible places. The anti-Islamic propaganda has been pumped out day in and day out since 9/11. So that they are vilified in order to get more people on board with killing them in war. There are of course the extremes. But you will find many Islamic countries aren't as scary as you might think.

a reply to: cooperton

the number one rule in Christianity is to Love God and Love your neighbor as yourself.

Honestly now, is that how the United States of America, a supposedly Christian nation as some are arguing, normally operates?

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Jobeycool

It's a misnomer that Islamic countries are horrible places. The anti-Islamic propaganda has been pumped out day in and day out since 9/11. So that they are vilified in order to get more people on board with killing them in war. There are of course the extremes. But you will find many Islamic countries aren't as scary as you might think.

Then go move to one and protest on the streets to them that Muhammad never existed and see if your butt is not bound for prison or dead.

a reply to: Jobeycool

What you just said and the entire premise of your position in this argument has already been addressed multiple times.

Did you watch the video and read even part of what has been said on the past 18 pages??? The answer would be no. Because if you had you'd know why what you just said makes no difference at all in countering the information already provided.

The only ones whining so far are the Christians who refuse to educate themselves on any of the information provided which proves beyond any doubt that the idea that America was or is "officially" a Christian Nation is wrong.

a reply to: Jobeycool

I'd have to study up on all the Muslim countries, but I'm sure I could find one that wouldn't use the law to jail or kill me.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Jobeycool

What you just said and the entire premise of your position in this argument has already been addressed multiple times.

Did you watch the video and read even part of what has been said on the past 18 pages??? The answer would be no. Because if you had you'd know why what you just said makes no difference at all in countering the information already provided.

The only ones whining so far are the Christians who refuse to educate themselves on any of the information provided which proves beyond any doubt that the idea that America was or is "officially" a Christian Nation is wrong.

Seems to me we both have become whiners now.Time to move on to another subject.Hound the death out of this one.

a reply to: windword

Well of course WindWord. Don't you recall all that Christian Love being expressed to the native americans??? Or the oodles of Love to all the Slaves, although that was a cost saver after all since it only cost them 3/5 the amount of Love as regular people.

It's just a big ol' fat history filled with Christian Love for Natives, Africans, Women (aka: Witches) and everyone else in between. Just like all that Love found in the Bible. Remember what Loving Tales those are??

a reply to: Jobeycool

EDIT: That was kinda rude of me to say so I'll take it back.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Jobeycool

Or you could just educate yourself like a normal person.

Dude read the taming of the tongue in the bible...please..This thread is running in a hole by now.I'm done now. Take care.

a reply to: Jobeycool

As you can see I decided to remove my post to be nice and I didn't need the damn bible to figure that out.

This thread is in a hole because half the people here comment without reading any of it.

Haha. These NLBS are becoming a real joke. All this blustering, bearded blowhard has shown is that early statesmen went out of their way to make US law secular. Well, duh. Who cares? Christianity is the most prevalent religion practiced by Americans and was even more prevalent the further back one goes. So, yeah, it's a Christian nation. When the UK becomes Muslim-dominated, it will be a Muslim nation.

Also - the US wasn't just "Christian", it had just about every Christian sect ever known to man .. Puritans, Anglicans, Quakers, Catholics, Russian Orthodox, Jesuits, Congregationals, Presbyterians, Dutch/German Reformed, Baptists, Methodists, Protestants .. and that's just the tip of the iceberg. There was nothing secular about ye olde United States. In fact, it was settled by Christians who wanted more latitude in the way they practiced their religion. The first amendment, secured their right to practice as they saw fit (and, of course, any other religion). But make no mistake, that was being driven by Christians who wanted to practice in peace.

But hey, this all makes for great pseudo-debate in typical ATS style!

I don't neccessarily agree with every facet of this NLBS Episode, but the folks who believe the U.S. was "intended to be a Christian nation", have a woefully poor understanding of our founding history, the "Bloody Church of England", and the history of religion generally... much of it pre-Christian.

As with the trouble caused by most "Beliefs", the "believers" perception is not attuned to fact finding... it is attuned to supporting their beliefs. This is true, whether you are talking about religion, the "best motor oil", or best automobile...

The argument is primarily chained to an emotive entrainment that is unyielding, even to demonstrable solid evidence to the contrary...

That's "beliefs" for ya... all the trouble on earth is caused by them, because people think belief and truth are the same thing... and they frequently have nothing to do with each other.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: windword

Well of course WindWord. Don't you recall all that Christian Love being expressed to the native americans??? Or the oodles of Love to all the Slaves, although that was a cost saver after all since it only cost them 3/5 the amount of Love as regular people.

It's just a big ol' fat history filled with Christian Love for Natives, Africans, Women (aka: Witches) and everyone else in between. Just like all that Love found in the Bible. Remember what Loving Tales those are??

Or the oodles of love shown by Muslims for disobedient women, or the love shown by Jews for the Palestinians, and so on. The world history is nothing more than people being subjugated in one form or another. Everyone is to blame and no one is to blame. You're never going to find a religion with completely unreproachable conduct, whoever decides those standards of conduct. In fact, it's quite silly to imagine that your ideology/religion, whatever it may be, will be held in high regard 400 years from now. To task even the most brilliant of minds to devise an ideology that will withstand the test of centuries is a fool's errand.

a reply to: Guidance.Is.Internal

You're never going to find a religion with completely unreproachable conduct, whoever decides those standards of conduct.

That's why religion has no place in government.