posted
Brooke Allen, claims that President Bush lied when he stated that America was founded on Christian principles. Read her claims for yourself – Our Godless Constitution, on The Nation web site: "One of his Administration's current favorites is the whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles. Our nation was founded not on Christian principles but on Enlightenment ones. God only entered the picture as a very minor player, and Jesus Christ was conspicuously absent."
Gary DeMar published a public refutation of her claims on the American Vision web site
Posts: 2845 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jay, his "refutation" is pretty weak. I mean, really, it's bad. Some of his responses -- like the whole "Holy Trinity" treaty bits -- are outright distortions. And he completely fails to address her principal arguments.
The original claim is an exaggeration, but the "response" is mostly a fraud.
posted
The place we know as the USA was settled by very very religous puritans. However, the political entity know as the USA was founded on Enlightenment priciples. Seperation of God and State etc. Bringing God into USA's political relm goes aggenst these principles. The words "under God" were not added to the pledge of allegence untill the cold war and the "evil athiest Communist" were an issue. So yes, I would say that Bush was mistaken or lied.
Posts: 264 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the opening of the Declaration of Independence:
quote: When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds 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.
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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
Seems like God was at least in their minds as the US began...
Sometimes we have to remember that not to put our modern definition of Enlightenment on the men and women of the Enlightenment 200-plus years ago.
Chances are they had no problem with being "Enlightened" and religious, just as many people today have no problem with it.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whose definition of "Christian principles" are we using? For example, in response to kyrie, the "Separation of God and State" could be considered a Christian principle based on Jesus' "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's" comment. And do we mean all Christian principles, or just a certain number of them, or specific ones? It's such a vague statement that I find it difficult to bother arguing on either side.
posted
Good point Moose. You can argue either side.
Many of the founding fathers were Deist, not Christian. Just because you are monotheistic doesn't neccesarily mean you are Christian. So pointing out "God" in various documents adds little to the debate, without additional commentary.
Also, seperation of church and state evolved after a series of SC rulings starting in the early 1800's, from it's origins in the no-national-religion clause in the bill of rights.
edit:aspectre rightly points out that separation issues predate the US constitution.
posted
There's also a very reasonable question of why does it matter, I would think. Whether an idea is Christian, Muslim, or secular, if it works, use it. If it doesn't, don't.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to point out my fears of the "Founded on Christian Principles" argument.
If we say that America was founded on Christian Principles, then are those of us not Christian not truly American?
Is being Jewish or Muslim, Buddhist or Wiccan, or God forbid, Agnostic or Aethistic, tantamount to being un-American, traitorous, second class citizens or non-citizens.
That last is scariest of all, for we witness in Guantanamo how non-citizens are treated in this country.
Which is kind of ironic, since they don't seem to be being treated in a truly Christian way.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nonsense, that is precisely the way Christians have treated pagans and heretics through the centuries. Only a bit kindlier.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Separation of church and state evolved out of the New Jersey Charter written by William Penn, who later founded Pennsylvania on the same principles >> etc etc etc >> embedded into the Virginia Charter/Constitution by George Washington's brother.
In other words, the separation of church and state was an ever expanding American tradition long before America existed as a nation. Because of that tradition, mention of the Deity and Scripture was deliberately left out of the Constitution of the United States.
posted
Were most of the founding fathers religious men? Yes. Were most early Americans Christian? Yes. Does this make us a "Christian Nation?" Not in the least.
There's a reason the first amendment was first - all of the early settlers of North America (Puritans, Quakers, etc.) came here seeking religious freedom from the "Christian Nation" of England.
I am personally very grateful that, even if society wasn't exactly tolerant of it at the time, the constitution of the United States allowed my religion to be founded and practiced in the 19th century. We are a Christian people, but were chased from the then-American territory and ignored by the federal government, even when the governor of Missouri declared that we move out of his state or be exterminated. I've seen what happens when people claiming Christianity decide to persecute those of other faiths, and I'm not to eager to see it touted as official policy again.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
"America was founded on Christian principles" is a pretty common sentiment heard in evangelical Christian circles. I've heard it on Christian talk radio and from friends at church. It's a justification salve on par with "Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion".
It's a catch phrase that's currently popular. I wouldn't (and don't) read very much into it.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Seems like God was at least in their minds as the US began..."
Well, that's not exactly the case. The use of "Creator" and "Nature's God" in this situation are philosophical constructs used to posit the existence of a higher order that would justify both their rebellion and/or the principles of freedom and self-determination they were putting forward as givens. It was easier to get away with statements like "God wants us to be free" back then, which made that sort of rhetorical device not only convenient but ubiquitous.
Not even fifty years later, more rigorous standards of debate made this usage less common.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's notable that many of the most prominent founders were not christians, but deists or agnostics.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do people understand what the Enlightenment actually was? Could someone, Jay maybe, since you seem to be the main agonist here, explain to me what the Enlightment was and the important role in playedin the founding of our country?
It seems to me that trying to use "America is a Christian nation." in the way that many people seem to do or claiming that because we were an Enlightenment country that we didn't have Christian influences in our founding betrays a lack of understanding of what the Enlightenment was and the role in had in the development of America.
posted
And I don't think that it's fair to say that President Bush is lying about this. I doubt he could pronounce Rousseau, let alone knows anything about him. He actually said that his favorite political philosopher is Jesus and I don't think he was just pandering there. I think he is actually that ignorant of political philosophy...and, well, Christianity too, I guess.
posted
Jay, again, the people you quote either are being deliberately obfuscatory or don't understand significant elements of the issues at hand. Rather than linking to their flawed articles, then, why not tell us how you feel?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: Each form of government has a guiding principle: ... aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation----Moderation in aristocracy? HAhahaha
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society.--are they serious??
quote: Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.
Presumably the majority get to pick the principle the goverment runs on, unless the rights of minorities are protected, as with the establishment clause. Of course, if you believe "there is no such thing as a pluralistic society," you have a different POV.
quote: Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible.
This seemed like crap, and according to this web page it is. The 60% figure doesn't come from the researchers. Also,
quote:Three fourths of the Biblical citations in Lutz's 1760 to 1805 sample come, not from secular sources, but from reprinted sermons (one of the most popular types of political writing during these years). Conversely, the Bible accounts for only 9% of all citations in secular literature, about equal to the number of citations from classical authors (Origins, p. 140). Hence, were it not for the political activity of religious clergy, the Bible would be tied for fourth place among source citations during 1760 and 1805
posted
Also, Jay, fugu said "many of the most prominent founders were not christians" not "most prominent founders were not christians" as you quoted. The first is true, the second is not. Most founders were Christian, of course.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Lets see, that's arguably the three most prominent founding fathers, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin, and not a Christian among them.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Ethan Allen, whose capture of Fort Ticonderoga while commanding the Green Mountain Boys helped inspire Congress and the country to pursue the War of Independence, said, "That Jesus Christ was not God is evidence from his own words." In the same book, Allen noted that he was generally "denominated a Deist, the reality of which I never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian." When Allen married Fanny Buchanan, he stopped his own wedding ceremony when the judge asked him if he promised "to live with Fanny Buchanan agreeable to the laws of God." Allen refused to answer until the judge agreed that the God referred to was the God of Nature, and the laws those "written in the great book of nature."
From:Religion of the American Enlightenment by G. Adolph Koch, p. 40 (1968, Thomas Crowell Co., New York, NY.) quoting preface and p. 352 of Reason, the Only Oracle of Man and A Sense of History compiled by American Heritage Press Inc., p. 103 (1985, American Heritage Press, Inc., New York, NY.)
quote: It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship [The Barbary Treaties], which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."
From:The Character of John Adams by Peter Shaw, pp. 17 (1976, North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC)
quote:"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of...Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."
From:The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine, pp. 8,9 (Republished 1984, Prometheus Books, Buffalo, NY)
quote:The Barbary Treaties: Treaty of Peace and Friendship, .... Ratified by the United States [Senate]June 10, 1797. ARTICLE 11.
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 tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan 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.
Wow, I'd never heard of that clause before. I *heart* Google!
Note that any treaty ratified by the Senate becomes part of the law of the United States, in effect an extension of the Constitution. That's the gist of it, anyway, I forget the legal mumbo-jumbo.
posted
This site does a decent job of arguing for Christianity as the founding principle, and disputes some of the claims of Deism among the founders: http://www.natreformassn.org/founderz.html , the website of the National Reform Association--" The mission of the National Reform Association is to maintain and promote in our national life the Christian principles of civil government."
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
*nods* As that site argues, it is definitely fair to say that the founding fathers often held many complex beliefs not easily fit to any particular mold; this is, however, true of many religious and non-religious people today. However, moving from that understanding to the exclusion of those people from the faiths in their times most temperate to their beliefs as that site seems to want is both unfair, and seems to rather miss the point.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:all of the early settlers of North America (Puritans, Quakers, etc.) came here seeking religious freedom from the "Christian Nation" of England.
quote:The place we know as the USA was settled by very very religous puritans.
Historical aside: The New England, Pennsylvania, and Maryland were settled for largely religious reasons by Puritans, Quakers, and Catholics. Virginia (the first one settled) and Georgia were clearly commercial enterprises, although Georgia also had some penal objectives as well. The rest of the colonies had a less clear initial impetus.
The Puritans weren't even close to a majority. Principally religious settlers may not have been a majority either.
quote: Wow, I'd never heard of that clause before. I *heart* Google!
Note that any treaty ratified by the Senate becomes part of the law of the United States, in effect an extension of the Constitution. That's the gist of it, anyway, I forget the legal mumbo-jumbo.
Actually, you really should have gotten some historical context on this one. This was a treaty written to prevent a declaration of war after the battle of Tripoli. Ever heard of that one? That's the one that resulted when a big bunch of radical militant Muslims attacked an American ship and took all those onboard prisoner. This treaty was designed specifically to let those Muslims know that we were not there to start a new crusade. Thus, the treaty is written in terms understandable and agreeable to both sides. Along with this, this treaty is not entered as a LAW, only as a TREATY. There is a big difference. An international difference. Finally, this treaty states that America was not founded on the Christian religion. It does not say that the country wasn't founded on Christian principles (BTW, I'm not going to argue on this subject. But I will point out when people are bringing up bad *proof* for their own arguments).
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Note that any treaty ratified by the Senate becomes part of the law of the United States, in effect an extension of the Constitution.
This is a common misconception, based on a some dicta (non-binding language) in a Holmes opinion which has been specifically overridden. Treaties and laws are co-equal as part of the supreme law of the land. The other part of the supreme law of the land is the Constitution. Both treaties and laws are subject to the Constitution. A law passed b y Congress and signed by the President can supercede a treaty, and a ratified treaty can supercede a law.
quote:What happens when a treaty provision and an act of Congress conflict? The answer is, that neither has any intrinsic superiority over the other and that therefore the one of later date will prevail leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant. In short, the treaty commitments of the United States do not diminish Congress' constitutional powers.
posted
Dag, thanks for the clarification. I figured you would chime in on that.
Boris, of course there is a historical context, i.e. war with Muslims. But the clause is still there in the treaty, which was negotiated, ratified by the Senate and signed by the President.
That is a point, a founding religion and founding principles are two different things.
I didn't submit it as "proof" of anything, just something I had never seen before, an interesting historical footnote in the evolution of separation of church and state. Personally, I find the founders viewpoints less and less relevant to 21st century governing, although interesting to talk about.
posted
Without getting into the "was too, was not" arguments that inevitably rise during this pernennial discussion, I do have a question.
Which principles that formed the basis of this country are specifically Christian? As opposed to other faiths or philosophies, I mean? "Don't kill" can be described as a Christian principle but it's certainly not exclusive to Christianity. Which American principles are solely Christian?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good question. I don't know enough about other philosophies to answer that off the cuff, can anybody else?
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Just a note, I'm going to treat the Age of Reason as part of the Enlgihtenment. Of course, if you know the difference between the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, you already the stuff I'm going to talk about.)
The Enlightenment (wiki) was a movement towards reason and tolerance and away from the magical thinking, submission to authority, and inflexible parochialism that had kept Christian Europe a place of ignorance, savagery, and internicine warfare.
The first revolution was one of the system of thought. During this period, thinkers developed a way of thinking and of proof that has led our modern ideas of science and systematic scholarship.
They looked at what we actually could say we know. This was done early on by Montainge and Descartes (he of the "I think therefore I am.") and later by Hume and Kant.
One of the central characteristics of this new system of thought was its reliance on the idea of immutable, underlying laws. No longer was "Just because." or (more importantly) "Because God (or some other person in authority) said so." considered an adequate answer. The Deist (and in many cases the Christian) god was seen as a watchmaker, who set the immensely complicated but understandable universe machine in motion and was now watching it play out according to the laws that the god set in place.
This orderly conception of the universe spread into other matters, such as politics. Rulers were now expected to be able to provide valid reasons for their decisions and action instead of rely solely on their authority as they had in the past. There was increasing emphasis on the rule of law instead of the rule of the privledged (meaning "private law") person. This eventually developed into the idea of "natural rights" (or, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence "inalienable rights").
The Protestant Reformation had already raised the individual to the position of central concern, but it did so without humanism and tended to regard the individual as bascially evil who's basic duty was submission. The Enlightenment re-emphasized this pre-eminent focus on the individual but included the ideas of humanism, turning the picture of human history as one of a progression towards achieving the benefits of human freedom, instead of the static worlds of the communal relations then emphasized by the Catholic Church or of degraded, isolated individuals a la Luther and Calvin (and in my opinion, Ecclesiastes).
So the Enlightenment carried with it a call to revolution against those powers that opposed human freedom, namely the Church and the State, with the idea of setting up a new form of government. The ideas from the Declaration of Independence:
quote: 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. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
and the Constitution:
quote:to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
were not the often-ignored platitudes that they have become. They were a declaration of a new age, a near complete break from the world that had come before. Instead of being a matter of one ruling family wresting control from another or of one religion taking over from another, this was set forth as a revolution based on ideology and dedicated towards to extending justice and liberty to all it's citizens and not just those who had the right connections or religion. There are few things in human history as profound and far-reaching as this.
The Enlightenment had at least three distinct factions, divided by geography and ideological focus. The intial Enlightenment thinkers (now excepting the Age of Reason) were French: Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, and d'Alembert, among others). They were know as the philosphes or the Encyclopedists (as they were contributers to Diderot's Encyclopedia - itself revolutionary in the idea that people should be able to have ready access to information and that this access would destory ignorance and led to drastic social change). They were the most ideologically centered thinkers and, as the forces they opposed - Church and State - were most entrenched, they were also the most negatively oriented. Anti-clericsm was very strong in France as was the idea that the old order needed to be destroyed before the new one could be built.
The Scottish Enlightenment (wiki), (sometimes considered the English Enlightenment due to the role of John Locke and the dissident groups of England such as the Puritans) on the other hand was influenced by Scotland's status as one of the poorest country in Europe and the background of Calvinist Presbeterianism and took on a much more pragmatic and productive bent. The Scottish formed a lot of the thought that made up Utilitarianism. Also, besides the more philosophical concerns, he Scots turned to pratical applications, such as economics. Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations and the granddaddy of systematic capitalism, was a member of the Scottish Enlightenment.
The American Enlightenment was directly influenced by the Scottish one, as the Scotch did a heck of a lot of teaching. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, among others, were pupils of members of the Scottish Enlightenment. America was presented with the problem of unifying a divided populace with extremely different concerns and ways of approaching the world. Thus, the American Enlightenment was even more pragmatic and concerned with application than the Scottish. It's no accident that two of the main, non-Enlightenment pupils, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine were men with a driving concern towards practicality. The proto-Americans were faced with the problem that Franklin expressed as "We must hang together or, assuredly, we will hang separately." This was true not just in reference to the revolution against the British, but also as to the future of the nation as a whole. The Constitution (primarily authored by James Madison and defended in the Federalist Papers by Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay - see how those names come up again) achieved this by forming entrenching the Enlightenment ideas of the rule of law, liberty, and tolerance into the framework of the new nation.
---
There was plenty of Christian influence in the development of American. Judeo-Christian ethics formed the backdrop of the Revolution and the formation of the constitution. Heck, it even formed the backdrop of the French Enlightenment, which was against the Church as an institution, not necessarily the ideals of the Christian religion. However, at a time when most of the nations of Europe were "Christian" nations, America was different through the new ideas of the Enlightenment, which has as one of their effects America being much less a "Christian" nation than the countries of the old order.
When peopel talk nowadays about Americ being a "Christian" nation, they generally don't seem to understand the Enlightenment, its central role in our country's develpoment, or how while it's not contrary to religion, it does limit the legitimacy of what they want to do. They tend to want to force other people to live by their religions rules because we live in a "Christian" nation. On the other hand, however, many people seem to regard the strong anti-clericism of the French Enlightenment and the blatant and savage anti-religiousity of the French Revolution to be part and parcel of what it means to be an Enlightenment nation. They seem to want to get rid of all traces of religion and make religious people feel as if they should feel ashamed of their belief. Neither one of these is true to the spirit of the founding of our country. Neither the Christian bigotry of the Maryland Act of Toleration nor the exclusionary, positivist nonsense of Thermidor should be part of our national character.
---
Of course, since there's such astounding ignorance of the things I just wrote about, what really is true to this spirit these days?
posted
I have heard it said that the writings of John Calvin were influential on the founding fathers, but I've never taken the time to investigate the matter thoroughly. I do know, however, that Calvin wrote a great deal about government and public policy and advocated the republican system of governing.
Here's some quick quotes I found by googling it, I'm not claiming these are unbiased sources.
quote:Calvin drafted the new ordinances that the government modified and adopted as a constitution for Geneva governing both secular and sacred matters. Calvin also supported development of a municipal school system for all children, with the Geneva Academy as the center of instruction for the very best students.
quote:Ideas of government created by Calvin found wider expression in Scotland and the United States when Calvinists brought them to those countries. Calvin's model of church government became the model for national governments.
Christian idea--Divine Rights of Kings, that since David the true leaders of men were divinely chosen by God and should be followed unquestioningly. To question the state is to blaspheme.
Enlightment Idea--The rule of Civil Law, that all people, King, President, Priest or lowest landless bum must obey the laws of the land.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I don't think that'd be a fair generalization. The Christian churches have generally been the bad guys if you're looking at history with an eye for liberty or human progress, but there have been plenty of instances of Christianity being for a lot of the same stuff as the Enlightenment. At the time of the Enlightenment and the American revolution, they were very much against the ideas of freedom, but that doesn't mena that this is a Christian idea. It's more of an oppressor thing and they were acting as oppressors. The divine right of kings is obivously not a necessary part of Christianity. It evolves too and has in many contemporary cases taken on the cause of human liberty (as well as failing to do so in facor of its parochial needs, such as with the Catholic Church during World War II).
The more fundamental difference is between authority based and scientific/investigative type thinking, and even that can be resolved by relagating things to their proper places a la William of Occam or John Stuart Mill. (Although you can still see tendencies in many religious towards submitting to authority.)
There's no real fundamental conflict between religion and the Enlightenment unless people are trying to force other people into something using arational thinking.
I don't like how the debate is framed as being between Christianity and the Enlightenemnt principles. Really what it comes down to is just living up to or not living up to Enlightment ideals. Christianity can be a factor either towards or against this. Right now, it seems more on the against side, but I think that's primarily because the people using it as such are against those ideals and not because the belief system has to be.
edit: Of course, that's taking a more liberal view of some of Christian theology. The writings of St. Paul, for example, if read in a certain literal way lay out the ideal of submission to worldly authority in the divine right of kings style that is always going to be in direct conflict with Enlightenment thinking.
edit #2: One of the main things that I was trying to get at above is that the fundamental difference between America and the rest of Europe during it's founding was that America was explicitly set up as an Enlightenment country. At the time, the principles of the Enlightenment were in conflict with nearly all of the political thought of the predominant Christians. Were America set up as a "Christian" country as according to the ideas of the time, the ideals of individual rights, tolerance, and rationality would not have been hallmarks of its founding. This is not to say that there wasn't a great deal of Christian influence on it or that being a Christian necessarily conflicts with being an American. However, what it does mean is that the idea of America being a "Christian" nation is used to trump it being an "Enlightenment" one, people are in the wrong.
posted
From what I have heard, the reason why "nature's god" and "Creator" were used in the Declaration of Independence was that Jefferson was arguing with the concept of Divine Right of Kings directly. That is, in order to claim independence, he needed equally "divine rights" as a basis for a new independent government.
quote:Which principles that formed the basis of this country are specifically Christian? As opposed to other faiths or philosophies, I mean? "Don't kill" can be described as a Christian principle but it's certainly not exclusive to Christianity. Which American principles are solely Christian?
There are very few (if any) principles that are solely Christian. The "golden rule," for example, can be found in some form or other in every major religion, and predates Christ by a long shot.
Extending "Christianity" to "Judeo-Christianity" you might consider the Ten Commandments. But the first 4 are in direct conflict with the first amendment, and the next 6 are essentially secular in nature. I've recomended posting those six commandments as a compromise for those who want to post all ten in government buildings.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always thought we should post all 10, but with the ones relating to god (either the first 3 or 4 depending on whose version you use) crossed out so as to reflect both our Christian and our Enlightenment nature. But yeah, that'll never fly.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Squicky, thank you for your long post above. I was aware of a lot of that stuff on the Enlightenment, but hadn't really linked it all together in my own mind.
This was a popular topic in the variety of Christianity in which I was raised. My father vehemently disagreed every time one of these "speakers" saying "America was a Christian nation" came to present at our church and loved to argue with them. Why my parents stay in that sect I'm not sure, because they are actually far more liberal than they think they are on most subjects. But as a result I'd heard bits and peices of the above, but not the whole thing.
posted
I appreciate you acknowledging it Banna. It does mean a lot to me when I know that people have read and thought about what I've written. I'm glad that you found it useful, rough though it may be. I wish that Jay and people like him would make use of resources like it, but it seems like the America they love is very different from the one that I love.
posted
Well Squick, that was the right length... sometimes you get a little longwinded and I do go into "overload". I'd also say it was more entertaining than your usual expounding. Maybe because it was more richly populated with historical figures, than the ever important, but not nearly as readable dry facts?
posted
Mr. Squicky, that was a tour de force. Thank you for laying all of that out, it's given me a lot more to think on and a better understanding of the Enlightenment in Europe and in America.
I don't know if you are a teacher by trade, but you've been an educator today.
Posts: 472 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good post, Squicky. I disagree with this part though:
quote:The Protestant Reformation had already raised the individual to the position of central concern, but it did so without humanism and tended to regard the individual as bascially evil who's basic duty was submission.
I realize submission to God was considered a duty. But weren't Protestants the main group that fought against the authority of the Catholic Church, and later against the divine right of Kings? Also, Puritan repression at the hands of Queen Elizabeth and her successors, James I, Charles I ,Charles II and James II led to Puritan striving for the right of freedom of religion, not submission to authority, whether of the King of England or the Pope. This later was a factor in the establishment clause, I suppose. Puritan repression in the 17th century
Meh, I'm rambling--maybe I'll take a nap. Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Morbo, read up on how the Puritan's governed once they were in power. I think the necessity of submission was still there, just in a different form.
posted
True, Cromwell was a dictator. But most revolutions end up that way, exchanging one group of rulers for another.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Calvin also burn dissenters at the stake in his little commune in Geneva?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I'd also say it was more entertaining than your usual expounding. Maybe because it was more richly populated with historical figures, than the ever important, but not nearly as readable dry facts?![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
