No, America is not a Christian nation

Right. Quite a bit happened while I was asleep. I'll keep my rebuttal of the religious crap short, since this thread isn't about religion. Basically, I don't see godhood as an issue of authority. In my view, gods are very powerful beings that probably came into being as the universe was forming, not before. I think they're worthy of worship because they're more metaphysically powerful then humans, and they represent and promote ideals within the world. In my view, following multiple gods that promote a few specific things makes more sense than following Yhwh or Allah, who claim to be everything, and to be the creator of all. This said? You're free to have your own opinions, just try to be more respectful of mine.

In the Declaration of Independence, I see three references to a god, one direct and two oblique. I will treat them here separately. If there are any others, I apologize, I merely have time to scan it at the moment as I need to shower and head for college soon.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

(Holy run-on sentences, batman!) Now then, I was originally raised baptist, and to my eyes, saying "Nature's god" is about the least Christian way of invoking a single god I can think of. Honestly this smacks more of deism to me (The belief that a god created the world and then left it to run like a watch) than Christianity, but that's an opinion.

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

Mention of a creator again, but it still seems intentionally vague and inclusive. specially considering the time period.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies,

Supreme judge of the world. This is pretty Christian, I have to admit, or at least very strongly Abrahamic in it's leanings. This said, the declaration of independence isn't US law, it predates the US, and to me this intentional vagueness tells of a reluctance to invoke the god of Abraham shows the seeds of restraint that led the (Mostly deistic) founding fathers to keep mentions of god out out the highest document in the land and the first document of law, the constitution.

(Incidentally, I left out 'Lord' in the date, since including it seems just a bit silly, to me. That's just how dates were said then.)

CryHavoc
My history is f$^#ed up? You don't even realize the Inquisition lasted for more than 6 centuries. And was not ever limited to Muslims in Spain. I think you've been watching too much Monty Python or something.

The Inquisition was a group of institutions within the judicial system of the Roman Catholic Church whose aim was to combat heresy. It started in 12th-century France to combat the spread of religious sectarianism, in particular the Cathars and the Waldensians. This Medieval Inquisition persisted into the 14th century, from the 1250s associated with the Dominican Order. In the early 14th century, two other movements attracted the attention of the Inquisition, the Knights Templar and the Beguines.
At the end of the Middle Ages, the concept and scope of the Inquisition was significantly expanded, now in the historical context of the turmoils of the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation. Its geographic scope was expanded to other European countries, as well as throughout the Spanish and Portuguese empires in the Americas, Asia and Africa. Its focus now came to include the persecution of sorcery (an aspect almost entirely absent from the Medieval Inquisition), making it one of the agents in the Early Modern witch-hunts.
The institution persisted after the end of the witch-trial period in the 18th century, but was abolished outside of the Papal States after the Napoleonic wars. The institution survives as part of the Roman Curia, but it was renamed to Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office in 1904.

EDIT: You'd think someone claiming the name FreeMason would know that the Inquisition was responsible for the disbandment of the Knights Templar.

edit on 21-10-2013 by CryHavoc because: (no reason given)

The Inquisition you still quoted was used against heretics like Albigensian crusade.

Again, "Pagans", by the 1200s the Christian faith was published in over 80 languages, from Armenia to Ireland, from Russia to Morocco.

When in the collapsing Roman Empire, or the Dark Ages, did the Christians have the power to force Pagans to convert?

You are claiming the Inquisition is the cause of the spread of Christianity, but the Inquisition was used against Christians and Muslims.

And let's take the Germans for example, who conquered Rome in 476AD.

THEY WERE CHRISTIAN.

They were Arians but that's beside the point, did Arius go in there by his lonesome and convert Germans by the sword? Your claim is UTTERLY PREPOSTEROUS.

I wouldn't have to get in more religious-side debate of things if people didn't make such historically inaccurate claims as that Christianity was spread by the sword, which is utterly false.

I already provided links to just a tip of the iceberg of just how really Christian our founding fathers were...so whoever was asking about that go to that link.

Note, both the guy who claims that the inquisition spread Christianity among the pagans, and the guy that claims Christianity wasn't spread by the sword are both false. The Germanics /mostly/ peacefully converted, often because catholic priests convinced them that Jesus was a warrior god like Thor, just stronger (This is why you often see representations of Jesus with a hammer or spear in German artifacts dating to the late roman empire) The real areas where Christianity was spread by the sword are the Slavic and Baltic countries. You've heard of Prussia, I'm sure, and just mentioning it immediately brings to mind Germans, right? Well around 1200 a group known as the 'Old Prussians' lived there, who weren't Germanic at all, and worshiped separate gods. You can read about them here. Old Prussians on wikipedia. Now, you might ask why we associate Prussians with Germans today. Well, the Teutonic Order, under orders from the pope and at the request of the Catholic kingdom of Poland, came in and performed wholesale genocide on the local pagans, assimilating the leftovers into their Christian Germanic culture.

Next let us look to Russia (or what would become it), my memory is often faulty, so I'm going to be quoting Wikipedia again quite a bit, using snippets from this article.

Then Vladimir sent a message to all residents of Kiev, "rich, and poor, and beggars, and slaves", to come to the river on the following day, lest they risk becoming the "prince's enemies". Large number of people came; some even brought infants with them. They were sent into the water while Orthodox priests, who came from Chersonesos for the occasion, prayed.[13]

The baptism of Kiev was followed by similar ceremonies in other urban centres of the country. The Ioakim Chronicle says that Vladimir's uncle, Dobrynya, forced the Novgorodians into Christianity "by fire", while the local mayor, Putyata, persuaded his compatriots to accept Christian faith "by the sword".

Paganism persisted in the country for a long time, surfacing during the Upper Volga Uprising and other occasional pagan protests. The northeastern part of the country, centred on Rostov, was particularly hostile to the new religion. Novgorod itself faced a pagan uprising as late as 1071, in which Bishop Fedor faced a real threat to his person; Prince Gleb Sviatoslaich broke up the crowd by chopping a sorcerer in half with an axe.[16]

So yeah, Christianity did spread by the sword against non-monotheists, just not in Germanic lands, and it had nothing to do with the Inquisition, which was mostly against Jews and Musselmen. There's also it's attack on the Scandinavian lands, but I'm not going to cover that because everything there happened by the sword. Oh, and let us not forget the forced conversion of the Pagans of North America, South America, and Africa.

But not just in Germanic lands, but in Roman, in Ireland, in Scotland, in Scandinavia.

There really aren't a lot of places that some "Christian Army" came up to and said "Convert or die", like in Islam or like the inquisition man would want to argue.

Did Christianity cause conflict? Yes, Jesus said it would.

But did organized conflict lead to mass conversion? Not really. Most conversions were peaceful.

And in your last quote you quote how Pagans were OPENLY HOSTILE to the Christians, this conflict was going both ways.

FreeMason
But not just in Germanic lands, but in Roman, in Ireland, in Scotland, in Scandinavia.

There really aren't a lot of places that some "Christian Army" came up to and said "Convert or die", like in Islam or like the inquisition man would want to argue.

Did Christianity cause conflict? Yes, Jesus said it would.

But did organized conflict lead to mass conversion? Not really. Most conversions were peaceful.

And in your last quote you quote how Pagans were OPENLY HOSTILE to the Christians, this conflict was going both ways.

edit on 21-10-2013 by FreeMason because: (no reason given)

Yeah, their government was saying "Convert or be the enemy of the prince." That's pretty hostile, and I'm pretty sure if your government told you to convert to Islam or be it's enemy you'd rise up too. Christianity converted the Baltic and Russia by the sword, and did the same to the new world and much of Africa. The Germans were a fluke, and honestly the Celts just rolled over and did whatever you told them to by the time Christianity came on the scene.

LupusDiscus

FreeMason
But not just in Germanic lands, but in Roman, in Ireland, in Scotland, in Scandinavia.

There really aren't a lot of places that some "Christian Army" came up to and said "Convert or die", like in Islam or like the inquisition man would want to argue.

Did Christianity cause conflict? Yes, Jesus said it would.

But did organized conflict lead to mass conversion? Not really. Most conversions were peaceful.

And in your last quote you quote how Pagans were OPENLY HOSTILE to the Christians, this conflict was going both ways.

edit on 21-10-2013 by FreeMason because: (no reason given)

Yeah, their government was saying "Convert or be the enemy of the prince." That's pretty hostile, and I'm pretty sure if your government told you to convert to Islam or be it's enemy you'd rise up too. Christianity converted the Baltic and Russia by the sword, and did the same to the new world and much of Africa. The Germans were a fluke, and honestly the Celts just rolled over and did whatever you told them to by the time Christianity came on the scene.

Russia is a quagmire of totalitarianism and not the best area of discussion, we can look to Egypt where there was no "formal" requirement to become Christian but still conflicts between Pagans and Christians that were propagated by both sides.

People make it look like Christianity somehow became instantly powerful and persecuted a powerless pagan people. Bull$iet. Pagans were a protected group in the Empire even after Constantine's official conversion to Christianity and making it the state religion. Debates were still held between Christians and pagans and etc.

As for Russia, a country settled by Vikings, hardly the peaceful pagans you want them to be. So "Convert or be the enemy to the prince" really may have just been a hollow threat, knowing that unconverted Rus (Vikings) would be hostile anyway.

On topic, Christian Founding Fathers and their views.

www.wallbuilders.com...

reply to post by Grimpachi


It was founded on Christian beliefs, and America overall had the highest population of Christians, it was what made this country strong in the past.

Those are pretty much facts.

But now we have a Muslim for president, immoral anti-Christian people all over the place, so now we may not be any more.

reply to post by Kaboose


Plenty of Christians are immoral as well. They just have the luxury of pretending they're right.

reply to post by seeker1963


I'm at loss for words. That was the most beautiful put them in their place statement I have ever read. Ok I may of exaggerated a bit but still.

Grimpachi

It’s common to hear conservatives say things like Paul Ryan did during the campaign: “Our rights come from nature and God, not from government.” Liberals shrug most of the time when they hear such rhetoric. It sounds like an empty platitude, much like praising the troops or waving the flag, that makes audiences feel good but doesn’t actually have any real-world importance. What liberals don’t understand, however, is that what sounds like an empty platitude actually signifies an elaborate, paranoid theory on the right about sneaky liberals trying to destroy America, a theory that is being used to justify all manner of incursions against religious freedom and separation of church and state.

The Christian right theory goes something like this: Once upon a time, a bunch of deeply religious Christian men revolted against the king of England and started a new nation with a Constitution based on the Bible. Being deeply religious fundamentalist Christians, they intended for their new society to reflect Christian values and the idea that rights come from God. But then a bunch of evil liberals with a secularist agenda decided to deny that our country is a Christian nation. Insisting that rights come from the government/the social contract/rational thinking, these secularists set out to dismantle our Christian nation and replace it with an unholy secularist democracy with atheists running amok and women getting abortions and gays getting married and civilization collapse. For some reason, the theory always ends with civilization collapse. The moral of the story is that we better get right with God and agree that he totally gave us our rights before the world ends. Insert dramatic music here.

None of this actually went down that way, but there are Christian right revisionist historians who are pushing this claim hard. David Barton is a major advisor to all sorts of Christian right figures and he has long promoted the completely false theory that the Founders wanted something very close to a Christian theocracy. Indeed, in their desperation to make people believe what simply isn’t true, activists on the right have even gone so far as to try to push Barton’s lies about the Founders into public school textbooks. The notion that America’s founders believed rights come “from God” goes straight back to Barton’s making-stuff-up style of “history.”

link

If Christian fundamentalists manage to get their way and convince the public that rights and the US constitution come from god then it will be that much easier for them to strip every right away they don’t like that isn’t in the bible. I read something along those lines a while back for pertaining to the revolutionary war. Hey the bible wasn’t against slavery and pertaining to now it sure doesn’t advocate for equal rights especially not for women. This entire push to re write US history portraying us as a Christian nation is nothing but counterproductive.

I haven't read many of the replies, so I'm sorry if this has been said. I am a non-religious, anarcho-capitalist/libertarian, and even I can see that America was intended to be a Theistic nation.

Thomas Jefferson, who authored the Declaration of Independence, was born during the Enlightenment era. Some ideas that Jefferson included into the draft of the declaration were "all men are created equal", "inalienable rights" and "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

These ideas were inspired by authors such as Thomas Paine and John Locke, as well as the English Bill of Rights. John Locke's Second Treatise of Government was written during the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

It’s common to hear conservatives say things like Paul Ryan did during the campaign: “Our rights come from nature and God, not from government.

Are rights given by God? Well, probably not.

But as far as the Declaration of Independence (thanks to John Locke) is concerned, all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

Should "God" be allowed to dictate policy? No.
Was the United States envisioned by the founding fathers as a religious, deity believing nation? Yes.

reply to post by TheTalentedMrBryant

Was the United States envisioned by the founding fathers as a Christian, deity believing nation? Yes.

Envisioned as a religious nation? That's a very strong possibility. Envisioned as a Christian nation? Not necessarily. And that's the issue, isn't it? Discerning between general religiosity and that which is specifically indicative of Christianity.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by TheTalentedMrBryant

 

Was the United States envisioned by the founding fathers as a Christian, deity believing nation? Yes.

Envisioned as a religious nation? That's a very strong possibility. Envisioned as a Christian nation? Not necessarily.

Quite right!

I hope that my slip doesn't take away from the point I was trying to make.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by TheTalentedMrBryant

 

Was the United States envisioned by the founding fathers as a Christian, deity believing nation? Yes.

Envisioned as a religious nation? That's a very strong possibility. Envisioned as a Christian nation? Not necessarily. And that's the issue, isn't it? Discerning between general religiosity and that which is specifically indicative of Christianity.

edit on 21-10-2013 by AfterInfinity because: (no reason given)

I understand, I guess I was mainly tackling the points made in the first paragraph as I don't necessarily see anything wrong with Paul Ryan's statement.I may not believe, but he isn't the first person to say that rights come from God. That assumption, even if incorrect, has led to the drafting of many revolutionary works.

reply to post by jayfosters


Under that principle god blessed the roman empire and british empire and for alot longer as American only been top dog for 70 years. And look wgat happend to its predicesors.

God dont give a flying f what happens to the usa. Your just another corrupt superpower to rise and one day eventually fall.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Just by chance Hagmann and Hagmann Report did a show hitting on this topic tonight, still 1 hour left in the show as I type this, Doug is by himself tonight on the show.
Surprised in his research he found many of the founding fathers were not very Christian, and possibly Freemasons, maybe this is common knowledge to some but he gets pretty in depth.
That said the common men and women were mostly Christian for sure, and that is what America is, the working man and woman not the big shots, not the government..


www.blogtalkradio.com...

AfterInfinity
reply to post by jayfosters

 

This is why Christ said turn the other cheek. If someone pisses off a non believer and the non believer asks the Christian to stop, and the Christian does not, then Christ taught we should turn the other cheek if the non believer smacks us. Why ? Because we are not following Christ's way of planting seeds.

Actually, that's a Chinese philosophy. The theory goes that because of the yin and yang, if you are smacked on the cheek, you can turn the other cheek and they won't hit you again because they believe in balance.

Don't believe everything you hear, and do your bloody research, for crying out loud.

Actually, you're both in error.

Christ demands that a Christian that is struck on the cheek not only take the strike on one of his cheeks, but he should also offer up his other cheek to be struck in the name of the Lord. He also goes on to say that if a man sues you for your coat, that you should also give him your cloak.

Jesus was kind of a sadomasochist.

I find it funny. They all want to assert the founders were all fundamentalist Christians too, and some even want to say they were atheists. However, they should probably research the Masonic, western esoteric conception of God, and they'll get a better idea.

As for Paul Ryan, I think he's a dyed in the wool Objectivist, and he just lies about being Christian, because he knows he can stir up a very useful base with it that, if it were known, he has absolutely no real respect for. He's probably a radical who, like Ayn Rand, doesn't give the faintest damn about traditional values and conservative concerns for community, family, and social stability. In the end, he's just a shill for the corporatocaracy, and his job is ultimately to convince the unwhitting conservative that their values are in allignment with corporate, multi-national values.