Thoughts and/or comments?

That analysis is about as succinct as I have ever seen. Kudos, and thanks for the references.

Thank you KDinAZ. I'm glad you like it.

100% on the mark.

Pretty Selective argument

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.” (John Adams Letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813)

"From the time of the Declaration of Independence, the American People were bound by the laws of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which they all acknowledge as the root of their conduct. We all came together to obey the word of God." - John Quincy Adams

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." - 1 st   Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay, "The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay", Henry P. Johnston, ed. (NY: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393, October 12, 1816

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?" -

George Washington's Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams, Address to the Military, October 11, 1798

“It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.”

On April 25, 1789, the Senate elected its first chaplain, Samuel Proovost, an Episcopalian bishop. On May 1, the House followed suit, electing Congregationalist William Linn. Later, on September 25, Congress passed a statute setting the salaries of various Congressional officials, including the chaplains, at $500 per year.47 As many commentators have noticed, and as the Marsh court stressed, this last act occurred only three days after Congress reached final agreement on the Bill of Rights.

By 1789, the chaplaincies were by law established under the new Constitution, and thus our focus moves from the debates about their existence to the practicalities of their operation. By statute, the House and the Senate are to elect chaplains of different denominations. We have NEVER had a non-Christian House or Senate Chaplain.

Laws and Statutes for Students of   Harvard College

Harvard College Lawes of 1642
(from New England's First Fruits)

1. When any Schollar is able to Read Tully or such like classicall Latine Author ex tempore, and make and speake true Latin in verse and prose suo (ut aiunt) Marte, and decline perfectly the paradigmes of Nounes and verbes in the Greeke tongue, then may hee bee admitted into the  College, nor shall any claime admission before such qualifications.
2. Every one shall consider the mayne End of his life and studyes, to know God and Jesus Christ which is Eternall life. Joh. 17.3.

constitution

Moving to the 20th Century from these Democrat Presidents

"America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness, which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scriptures. Part of the destiny of Americans lies in their daily perusal of this great book of revelations. That if they would see America free and pure they will make their own spirits free and pure by this baptism of the Holy Spirit." From his famous address: "The Bible and Progress," ~ Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States; May 7. 1911, Denver, Colorado.

"The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State!"--President Harry Truman February 15, 1950 Speech at the Department of Justice

JFK Inaugural Address 1961

For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God.

Pretty Selective argument

No, just a factual one.

“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and the attributes of God.” (John Adams Letter to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813)

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"From the time of the Declaration of Independence, the American People were bound by the laws of the gospel of Jesus Christ, which they all acknowledge as the root of their conduct. We all came together to obey the word of God." - John Quincy Adams

Cite your source!

“Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." -1st Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Jay, "The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay", Henry P. Johnston, ed. (NY: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393, October 12, 1816

Merely John Jay's personal opinion, and lacking any legal weight.

George Washington's Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.”

~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789

typical strawman response when no substantive rebuttal can be made.

First you attempt to change your original argument from America founded on principles of Christianity which I thoroughly demonstrated was accurate to an entirely different premise of establishing a Christian theocracy which NO ONE has ever suggested or claimed.

Secondly you then dismiss the views of the founders as simply their "opinion" which is exactly what constitutes evidence of their attitude about the new nation

Third you dismiss history of past president's holding the SAME views as the founders as irrelevant rather than affirming the historical view of our nation until the anti-American left has attempted to completely revise away our history.

I'm not surprised though.  Yours is typical of those who hate Christianity so much that they are willing to deny history

Gotta love when they move the goal posts to try to score in a losing game, lol!

Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States; May 7. 1911, Denver, Colorado.

Mr. Wilson's personal belief. He was not a Founding Father.

President Harry Truman February 15, 1950 Speech at the Department of Justice

Not a Founding Father.

JFK Inaugural Address 1961

Not a Founding Father.

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" --- John Adams, letter to Thomas Jefferson

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole cartloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity.” – John Adams

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

"The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes." --- John Adams, letter to John Taylor

“It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.” – John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America

... the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced or knew that such a character existed.  -- Thomas Jefferson , letter to Major John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

For we know that the common law is that system of law which was introduced by the Saxons on their settlement of England, and altered from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to the date of the Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common law ... This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century; the conversion of the first Christian king of the Heptarchy having taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law was in existence, and Christianity no part of it ... That system of religion could not be a part of the common law, because they were not yet Christians.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814, responding to the claim that Christianity was part of the Common Law of England, as the United States Constitution defaults to the Common Law regarding matters that it does not address. This argument is still used today by "Christian Nation" revisionists who do not admit to having read Thomas Jefferson's thorough research of this matter .

[If] the nature of ... government [were] a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I [would] consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits [will] exclude the advances of information, and they [will] seem exactly where they [have always been]. And there [the] clergy will always keep them if they can. [They] will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a tow-rope.  -- Thomas Jefferson , to Pierrepont Edwards, July 1801, quoted from Eyler Robert Coates, Sr., "Thomas Jefferson on Politics & Government: Freedom of Religion"

I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another. -- Thomas Jefferson , to Elbridge Gerry, 1799

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.  -- Thomas Jefferson , Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (1779)

Our civil rights have no dependence upon our religious opinions more than our opinions in physics or geometry. -- Thomas Jefferson , Statute for Religious Freedom, 1779

[Our] principles [are] founded on the immovable basis of equal right and reason.
-- Thomas Jefferson , to James Sullivan, 1797

Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporal rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labors for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that, therefore, the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to the offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow citizens he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honors and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles, on the supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty,… -- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom

"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ."

"The whole history of these books [the Gospels] is so defective and doubtful that it seems vain to attempt minute enquiry into it: and such tricks have been played with their text, and with the texts of other books relating to them, that we have a right, from that cause, to entertain much doubt what parts of them are genuine. In the New Testament there is internal evidence that parts of it have proceeded from an extraordinary man; and that other parts are of the fabric of very inferior minds. It is as easy to separate those parts, as to pick out diamonds from dunghills."  --Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, January 24, 1814

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority. -- James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, 1785

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814

I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 (Richard Price had written to TJ on Oct. 26. about the harm done by religion and wrote "Would not Society be better without Such religions? Is Atheism less pernicious than Demonism?")

The clergy...believe that any portion of power confided to me [as President] will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion." -- Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, 1800.

"In every country and every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot ... they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio Spafford, March 17, 1814

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." --- Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"

"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear." --- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787

"It is too late in the day for men of sincerity to pretend they believe in the Platonic mysticisms that three are one, and one is three; and yet that the one is not three, and the three are not one. But this constitutes the craft, the power and the profit of the priests." --- Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1803

"But a short time elapsed after the death of the great reformer of the Jewish religion, before his principles were departed from by those who professed to be his special servants, and perverted into an engine for enslaving mankind, and aggrandizing their oppressors in Church and State." --- Thomas Jefferson to S. Kercheval, 1810

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." --- Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind." --- Thomas Jefferson to Carey, 1816

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object." --- Thomas Jefferson to W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations.  The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious.  If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him.  They are always of two classes; fools and hypocrites.  To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. Thomas Jefferson

“Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of an established religion tends to make the clergy unresponsive to their own people, and leads to corruption within religion itself. Erecting the 'wall of separation between church and state,' therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.” Thomas Jefferson

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance.  I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible]. Thomas Paine

Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon than the Word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.   Thomas Paine

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. My own mind is my own church. Thomas Paine

Gentlemen:

While I received with much satisfaction your address replete with expressions of esteem, I rejoice in the opportunity of assuring you that I shall always retain grateful remembrance of the cordial welcome I experienced on my visit to Newport from all classes of citizens.

The reflection on the days of difficulty and danger which are past is rendered the more sweet from a consciousness that they are succeeded by days of uncommon prosperity and security.

If we have wisdom to make the best use of the advantages with which we are now favored, we cannot fail, under the just administration of a good government, to become a great and happy people.

The citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for having given to mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy—a policy worthy of imitation. All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship.

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it were the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights, for, happily, the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it on all occasions their effectual support.

It would be inconsistent with the frankness of my character not to avow that I am pleased with your favorable opinion of my administration and fervent wishes for my felicity.

May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants—while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.

May the father of all mercies scatter light, and not darkness, upon our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in His own due time and way everlastingly happy.

1. Washington (Letter to Hebrew Congregations of Newport, RI, August 17, 1790)

Let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religions. George Washington

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.  George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726]

Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause.  George Washington, letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792

If they are good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa or Europe; they may be Mahometans, Jews, Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists....  George Washington, to Tench Tighman, March 24, 1784, when asked what type of workman to get for Mount Vernon, from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution. George Washington, to United Baptists Churches of Virginia, May, 1789 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

As the contempt of the religion of a country by ridiculing any of its ceremonies, or affronting its ministers or votaries, has ever been deeply resented, you are to be particularly careful to restrain every officer from such imprudence and folly, and to punish every instance of it. On the other hand, as far as lies in your power, you are to protect and support the free exercise of religion of the country, and the undisturbed enjoyment of the rights of conscience in religious matters, with your utmost influence and authority. George Washington, to Benedict Arnold, September 14, 1775 from The Washington papers edited by Saul Padover

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison ( Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments , 1785.)

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

“And in a Gov' of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new & successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Gov will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together…” - [James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822, The Writings of James Madison, Gaillard Hunt]

“Ecclesiastical establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects.” - [James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr., Jauary 1774]

“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” - [Pres. James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

"It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov't from interfence in any way whatsoever , beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others." – [ James Madison, in a letter to Rev. Jasper Adams spring 1832, from James Madison on Religious Liberty, edited by Robert S. Alley, pp. 237-238]

I have examined all the known superstitions of the World, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.  They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology.  Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned.  What has been the effect of this coercion?  To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world...The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves.  [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.  Thomas Jefferson

It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God.  Thomas Jefferson

Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear. Thomas Jefferson

In all cases where a majority are united by a common interest or passion, the rights of the minority are in danger. What motives are to restrain them? A prudent regard to the maxim that honesty is the best policy is found by experience to be as little regarded by bodies of men as by individuals. Respect for character is always diminished in proportion to the number among whom the blame or praise is to be divided. Conscience, the only remaining tie, is known to be inadequate in individuals: In large numbers, little is to be expected from it. Besides, Religion itself may become a motive to persecution & oppression. – James Madison, Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787

When indeed Religion is kindled into enthusiasm, its force like that of other passions, is increased by the sympathy of a multitude. But enthusiasm is only a temporary state of religion, and while it lasts will hardly be seen with pleasure at the helm of Government. Besides as religion in its coolest state, is not infallible, it may become a motive to oppression as well as a restraint from injustice. – James Madison, Deficiencies of the Confederation, 1787

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society?  In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.  Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries.  A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."  - James Madison, 1785

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."  James Madison, letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries."   James Madison, 1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches

“Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.”  - [James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance, addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, 1785]

The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (James Madison, Letter to Robert Walsh , Mar. 2, 1819).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (James Madison, Detached Memoranda , circa 1820).

Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance ; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (James Madison, Letter to Edward Livingston , July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (James Madison, Letter Rev. Jasper Adams , Spring 1832).

To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (James Madison, Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina , June 3, 1811).

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist."  Benjamin Franklin

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution.  The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another.  The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans.  They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both here (England) and in New England."  Benjamin Franklin

From John Adams, in his publication "A Defence (sic) of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America," It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had any interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the inspiration of heaven, any more than those at work upon ships or houses, or labouring in merchandize or agriculture: it will for ever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

As Copley painted Chatham, West, Wolf, and Trumbull, Warren and Montgomery; as Dwight, Barlow, Trumbull, and Humphries composed their verse, and Belknap and Ramzay history; as Godfrey invented his quadrant, and Rittenhouse his planetarium; as Boylston practised inoculation, and Franklin electricity; as Paine exposed the mistakes of Raynal, and Jefferson those of Buffon, so unphilosophically borrowed from the Recherches Philosophiques sur les Américains those despicable dreams of De Paw — neither the people, nor their conventions, committees, or sub-committees, considered legislation in any other light than ordinary arts and sciences , only as of more importance.

Thirteen governments thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone , without a pretence of miracle or mystery, which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favour of the rights of mankind.

Here's an excerpt from James Monroe, when he declared in a legal proclamation, his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments (1785)

Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy .

Having plucked out quotes from people rather than anything in our laws, does this mean you accept Jefferson's "wall of separation between church and state" dictum as correct in his letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1801?  What about a treaty (i.e., an actual legal document) that was passed by the Senate and signed by Adams in 1797 stating "the United States is in no way a Christian nation?" 

Very well put together Gordy, this is a perfect example of what I meant about you being so fun to read and discuss with.

Great discussion. Controversial topic. Debated endlessly without ever coming to a solid conclusion, not just here but in every forum where it has been discussed and debated.

It always causes me to come up with the same question, that never is satisfactorily answered

Here is my question:

If The United States of America was NOT founded on Christian principles, then why did all of The Founding Fathers of The United States of America, who became the first presidents of this country, all place their left hands on The Holy Christian Bible when taking their Oath of Office?

1. George Washington
2. John Adams
3. Thomas Jefferson
4. James Madison
5. James Monroe

All five of the first presidents of this country, all five of who are acknowledged to be The Founding Fathers, all placed their left hand on The Holy Christian Bible when they swore their Oath as President.  Even Thomas Jefferson the famous Deist.

John Quincy Adams was the first president who did not place his hand on a Holy Bible to take the Presidential Oath of Office.  But John Quincy Adams is acknowledged as NOT being one of The Founding Fathers of The United States.

Also, much is made of the claim that Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian.  But little is said about his real religious beliefs.

This quote from Smithsonian.com should help to explain Thomas Jefferson's religious leanings:

In fact, Jefferson was devoted to the teachings of Jesus Christ. But he didn’t always agree with how they were interpreted by biblical sources, including the writers of the four Gospels, whom he considered to be untrustworthy correspondents. So Jefferson created his own gospel by taking a sharp instrument, perhaps a penknife, to existing copies of the New Testament and pasting up his own account of Christ’s philosophy, distinguishing it from what he called “the corruption of schismatizing followers.”

In effect, Jefferson was more of a pure Christian that most Christians are, since Jefferson focussed directly on the teachings of Jesus Christ.

So, why do some people seem to spend so much time, energy and effort making claims that this country was NOT founded upon Christian principles?  The only way to explain it is to go even further back in history to quote another famous man, not an America, who wrote:

Gertrude to Hamlet "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." 

Written by William Shakespeare

Allow me to ask my question again, to see if someone can come up with a good answer:

If The United States of America was NOT founded on Christian principles, then why did all of The Founding Fathers of The United States of America, who became the first presidents of this country, all place their left hands on The Holy Christian Bible when taking their Oath of Office?

I believe it was an act performed more for the onlookers rather than an endorsement of belief.  An act of good faith if you will.  

Your choice of the word "believe" is most interesting.  You can "believe" what you wish.  Christians can "believe" in their faith.  What you or they "believe" is not really germane.  What you can prove is really the only thing that matters, and the proof is that The Founding Fathers swore their Oath of Office with their left hands placed on The Holy Christian Bible.  That is proven fact, not belief or opinion.

My question still awaits an answer.  A real answer.

My answer was a real answer and at least I made an attempt.  No need to be rude.....I will happily move along.  Good luck in your search.

My reply to you was not rude.  It was factual.  So sorry you seem to be so easily offended.  My apologies.

If The United States of America was NOT founded on Christian principles, then why did all of The Founding Fathers of The United States of America, who became the first presidents of this country, all place their left hands on The Holy Christian Bible when taking their Oath of Office?

Although the federal government was prohibited from endorsing a religion, this was clearly a Christian country. Most colonies had official Christian religions. The practice of placing one's hand on the Bible grows out of an English practice intended to ensure that testimony given under oath (by a Christian) is truthful because a person who swears on the Bible would face damnation for lying. Swearing in a president is based on the same principle . . . a Christian principle. 

Swearing in a president is based on the same principle . . . a Christian principle. 

Good answer!

And I'll add that an oath taken in court ends with "so help me God."

And I'll add that an oath taken in court ends with "so help me God."

A ceremonial act which is entirely optional and not required. An acceptable alternative is to swear under the threat of perjury.

A ceremonial act which is entirely optional and not required. An acceptable alternative is to swear under the threat of perjury.

The question was why do presidents place their hand on the Bible not whether there's an alternative to it. The answer is rooted in Christianity. That's why they swear on the Bible rather than on the constitution or Zeus or their moma's grave.

Placing a hand on the Bible is the presumed lever for obtaining a sworn oath. The assumption is the Bible is important to the swearer, which, when the practice was originally instituted was undoubtedly true in almost all cases. There was a time when the US was 90 some percent Christian. 

That does not mean the use of the Bible was meant to indicate that the government was to be Christian. 

It is somewhat analogous to when someone says " I swear on my mother's grave"...

Why would an atheist be intimidated by swearing on a Bible?

The question was why do presidents place their hand on the Bible not whether there's an alternative to it. The answer is rooted in Christianity. That's why they swear on the Bible rather than on the constitution or Zeus or their moma's grave.

It's lip service or personal preference. It certainly is not required. Swearing on the Constitution would be more appropriate too, as it's the Constitution the President swears to uphold, not the bible.

Swearing on the Constitution would be more appropriate too, as it's the Constitution the President swears to uphold, not the bible.

Yet they have always sworn on a Bible because Christians believed it would ensure veracity. 

Yet they have always sworn on a Bible because Christians believed it would ensure veracity. 

They can believe whatever they want. but belief does not equal fact. It's also quite the leap to try and connect swearing on a bible to the founding of this country.

They can believe whatever they want. but belief does not equal fact. It's also quite the leap to try and connect swearing on a bible to the founding of this country.

It's  a fact that they believed a Christian would not risk damnation by lying while swearing on a Bible. A Christian principle undergirds that belief (which is why they use a Bible) and Christian principles undergird the founding of the country and they told you so in the DOL. They're all interrelated. Which doesn't mean that the federal government endorses religion (its expressly prohibited from doing so). 

It's  a fact that they believed a Christian would not risk damnation by lying while swearing on a Bible.

Again, they can believe whatever they want and belief does not equal fact.

A Christian principle undergirds that belief (which is why they use a Bible) and Christian principles undergird the founding of the country and they told you so in the DOL.

Funny how they failed to mention or even infer any of that in the Constitution. Not to mention the DoI does not establish our system of government or laws!

They're all interrelated.

Sorry, but swearing on a bible does not mean religious ideololgy was used as the basis for this country.

Which doesn't mean that the federal government endorses religion (its expressly prohibited from doing so). 

On that, we agree.

Show off

They may have sworn on the Bible themselves, but there is no requirement that anyone else do the same.  Presidents choose to take their oaths with their hands on the Bible, but there is no legal requirement for it, as there would be if our laws were based on Christianity.

And I'd love to see the reactions of some folks if a POTUS took the oath of office with his or her hand on a Koran.

I'd say many officials are closet atheists or agnostics who only swear on the Bible because they know that to do otherwise would be political suicide - they're aware of the power of Dominionists.

But what you say is not really the point is it?  No, it is not.

The point is: the five Founding Fathers of the United States of America were deeply religious men, who all swore their Oaths of Office with their left hands firmly placed on The Holy Christian Bible (and not the Quran or any other book you care to mention in a vain attempt to side-track the issue).

These are the same men, The Founding Fathers, who "Founded this country on Christian Principles".  Most especially the smartest of them all - Thomas Jefferson who was a devoted believer in the teachings of Jesus Christ.  

That is the point, and those are the facts.

They did so themselves, but declined to insist that anyone else do the same, because they recognized that their beliefs were personal to them, and may not be shared by others.

Remember John Adams' words in the Treaty of Tripoli:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

They personally were Christians, but made sure not to inject their religious beliefs into law.

Christianity would have us obey the Ten Commandments, the first of which is "I am the Lord thy God; thou shalt have no other gods before me".  This is directly contradicted by our First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion, regardless of one's chosen deity, or lack of belief in a deity.

Also, Thomas Jefferson may have been a believer in the words of Jesus, but his views as to whether Jesus performed miracles as the son of god would have been in opposition to those of many other Christians.  He saw Jesus more as a moral guide than as a deity, which is blasphemy to many denominations.

It was Jefferson himself, BTW, who coined the term "a wall of separation between church and state".

Neither of your arguments are relevant to the stated claim and title of the original article which is:

America Was NOT Founded On Christian Principles.

It obviously was, as well as principles of Greek and Roman democracy and republicanism, as well as other considerations throughout history and the world.

Statements about obeying Christian laws do not either prove or disprove that title or claim.

Whether Jefferson believed or did not believe in the miracles attributed to Jesus has no relevance to the title or subject matter of the article.

I agree Squirrel. The argument suggests promotion or support, when the title early limits this discussion to principles. 

On which Christian principles do you claim America was founded?  Principles that apply exclusively to Christianity?

I've been thinking the same thing...  Have you ever noticed that most major religions have many of the same principles?  I mean, not killing each other, honoring your parents, etc., seem to be universal good things.

"I'd say many officials are closet atheists or agnostics who only swear on the Bible because they know that to do otherwise would be political suicide - they're aware of the power of Dominionists."

Not Swearing on the bible is political suicide for a liberal?   Please.

Do only liberals vote in elections?

Why was it that one of the most inflammatory rumors put out about Obama the one that he is Muslim?

Because people know that to some, it matters.  A lot.

It's why the GOP glommed on to their whole "moral majority" trope - being a Christian is supposed to be right up there with loving your mom and apple pie as integral to being American.

If the country HAD been founded as a Christian nation, we all would have gone to free religious schools because we would have a state religion.

People who say it is a Christian nation really want it both ways, to be able to claim a religious basis for the constitution and other founding documents, but also to be able to say that there is separation. It's not that difficult to see the truth.

Good article.

"People who say it is a Christian nation really want it both ways, to be able to claim a religious basis for the constitution and other founding documents, but also to be able to say that there is separation."

I've noticed that people who say it's a "Christian nation" really only want it one way: christian only and no separation. Or at the very least, that separation only works one way: religion in government is ok, not government in religion.

"Good article"

Thank you.

While America was not founded as a Christian  nation with a state church we most certainly were founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and principles.  

we most certainly were founded on Judeo-Christian beliefs and principles.  

Demonstrably false, as the article shows. I defy you to prove otherwise!

Demonstrably false, as the article shows. I defy you to prove otherwise!

I would submit two arguments here:

• The inclusion of the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence and the word "Lord" in the Constitution. While this does not limit the documents to recognizing only Christianity, it certainly shows a belief in a Higher Power than Man.
• "Principles" of Christianity are as varied as its adherents, but boiled down to their simplest forms they embody the Ten Commandments, which are basically treat each other with respect and don't go around lying and wantonly killing people! I would argue that the Constitution most definitely embraces that in the Bill of Rights.

• • The inclusion of the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence and the word "Lord" in the Constitution. While this does not limit the documents to recognizing only Christianity, it certainly shows a belief in a Higher Power than Man.

"Creator" is an ambiguous term meant to apply to the individual's own beliefs, if any, and not to everyone as a whole. "Lord" in the Constitution (I assume you refer to "the Year of Our Lord") is the system of dating used at the time, much like mo/dd/yr is the system we use now. It is not an expression of religious fealty.

• • "Principles" of Christianity are as varied as its adherents, but boiled down to their simplest forms they embody the Ten Commandments, which are basically treat each other with respect and don't go around lying and wantonly killing people! I would argue that the Constitution most definitely embraces that in the Bill of Rights.

Most of the 10 Commandments relate to obedience or fealty, especially to god, which could not be in more opposition to the freedom of religion or the separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution. Not lying or killing in the legal sense predates the 10 Commandments by thousands of years and is not unique or exclusive to the 10  commandments or religion itself.

I would submit two arguments here:

Argument fail.

"Creator" is an ambiguous term meant to apply to the individual's own beliefs, if any, and not to everyone as a whole.

That statement is preposterous. "The Creator" has always been a reference to God.

That statement is preposterous. "The Creator" has always been a reference to God.

Merely your opinion. I find it rather odd that supposedly religious individuals like the Founding Fathers didn't explicitly say "God" on the DoI. One would think that if they were actually trying to impress a religious basis for the document, or the government in general, they would specify which deity and/or religion they chose to include as a basis.

I believe that the author has conflated a theocracy with guiding principles.  If he wants to make the argument that this is NOT a Christian Theocracy and was never intended to be, not a single person would argue with him. To argue that the principles of religion did not play a part in the forming of this country, is demonstrably incorrect--as some of us have shown.

I believe that the author has conflated a theocracy with guiding principles.

Perfect encapsulation. 

You stated:

they would specify which deity and/or religion they chose to include as a basis.

Hardly, since Thomas Jefferson was a Deist who believed that "God" wouldn't stoop to meddling in Human affairs. This fits the pattern of our modern day Agnostic's, of which I claim membership. I don't claim to know who or what Created us, but I sure as hell don't believe it was a lightning strike and pure chance...

I lean more towards an advanced extraterrestrial Race which has the backings of practically every religion and artifact found.  How else would a savage describe a spaceship than a "chariot of fire" or a lifesaving treatment delivered in a way they could not comprehend other than as a "miracle"? Give me and my buddies a few radios, a couple of .50 cals, and a Harrier jet and send us back 3000 years and watch us become  "gods"!

That statement is preposterous. "The Creator" has always been a reference to God.

 "The Creator" isn't in either the DoI or the Constitution. The DoI states 'their creator'. 

You are entitled to your opinion as am I.  But since you broached it, please point me to the "Lord" reference on the DoI in the dating of the article. Can't find it?  Yeah, neither could I; but you know what I did find upon further reading? I found  references to " Divine Providence " and "Supreme Judge of the World".  Do you need direction on what those are in regards to? So; in the Declaration of Independence--the ORIGINAL FOUNDERS DOCUMENT OF THIS NATION there are 3 references to a Supreme Being , and yet you claim there was no Christian principles or religious influence in the founding documents.

Interesting.

But hey, I understand the confusion since you jumped straight to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, completely ignoring that pesky language in the Declaration of Independence and the ORIGINAL founding document of the united States: The Articles of Confederation ! Whereas the Constitution only mentions the word " Lord " in the dating of the document, the AoC uses a Divine reference 3 different times:

1. Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven,
2. And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said articles of confederation and perpetual union,
3. , in Congress. Done at Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, the ninth Day of July, in the Year of our Lord one Thousand seven Hundred and Seventy eight, and in the third year of the Independence of America.

No, the fail comes in when you fail to acquiesce to the fact that even though no particular religion was given a preference, and actually is forbidden by the Bill of Rights, religion was indeed a factor--a prominent one at that since this country was established by those fleeing religious persecution--and trying to insist that God did not factor into their thoughts when establishing this country, is beyond supportable by any facts.

Are we a Christian Nation?  No. We are all inclusive to all religions. Christian Principles were part of that all when we were founded.

But since you broached it, please point me to the "Lord" reference on the DoI in the dating of the article. Can't find it?  Yeah, neither could I

That's because it's not in the DoI. It's in the Constitution.

; in the Declaration of Independence--the ORIGINAL FOUNDERS DOCUMENT OF THIS NATION

The document which doesn't establish the nation itself, only its sovereignty.

there are 3 references to a Supreme Being, and yet you claim there was no Christian principles or religious influence in the founding documents.

Lets look at those references then, shall we:

1. Laws of Nature and of Nature's God (can be any deity attributed with the creation of the world)
2. endowed by their Creator (definatively not just the Christian God since it is talking about an individual person's Creator)
3. Supreme Judge of the world (many deities are describe thusly)
4. protection of Divine Providence (every deity)

Funny how none of those references specifically state the Christian god/religion. Even funnier that there are no such references at all in the Constitution itself! Interesting indeed.

completely ignoring that pesky language in the Declaration of Independence and the ORIGINAL founding document of the united States

Funny how the only ammunition you have for your argument rest solely on the DoI, points of which I have previously addressed too. Now, what about that pesky language of the Constitution that completely omits any connection to religion or a deity? Or the words of the Founding Fathers themselves, whom I cited in the article. Mr. Adams himself made it quite clear in his writings about how religion was not used or influenced in  the founding of this country!

religion was indeed a factor--a prominent one at that since this country was established by those fleeing religious persecution--and trying to insist that God did not factor into their thoughts when establishing this country, is beyond supportable by any facts.

And you fail to see I cited primary sources regarding religious influence in the founding of this country. The Founding Fathers understood all too well what happens when religion is connected to the government, as was the case in England at the time. They did not want to repeat that mistake here. Basing the government or nation itself on religious principles is in stark contrast to that! The fact that the Constitution itself makes no such connection to religion or a deity makes that and the intentions of the Founding Fathers, abundantly clear!

My my how we do conflate the issues when we seek to amend without conceding the points made. You stated in your closing argument:

Based on the US Constitution and the writings and intentions of the Founding Fathers, it's safe to conclude that the United States was never founded on "Christian principles."

Now I'll let you slide on the claim that the DoI is not a founding document--that is another debate altogether, but what I won't let go is that not only has it been shown that numerous references to the Divine appear in every single one of the founding documents you list-- and the ones you ignore -- but that you also claim that the principles of Christianity played no part in it whatsoever even though you profess ignorance to what those principles might be .  

Interesting...again!

I suggest a re-reading of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights with the sole propensity to find those "principles" you claim do not exist. Since I really don't feel like delving so deeply into the subject and explaining how to find what you seek, I'll cheat and just give you this little tidbit to read . Intentionally or not, with Christianity--or any other religion in mind--or not, Yes, those principles made their way into the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Articles of Confederation, the Declaration of Independence, and every damn law book in this country . Do you seriously believe that the Constitution is based upon the beliefs of the heathens of raping, pillaging, and plundering to get what they want??? Current politicians and Corporate assholes not withstanding...

I would submit two arguments here:

The inclusion of the word "Creator" in the Declaration of Independence and the word "Lord" in the Constitution. While this does not limit the documents to recognizing only Christianity, it certainly shows a belief in a Higher Power than Man.

 The word 'creator' in the hand written version of the DoI is NOT capitalized. 

The ONLY place that the word 'Lord' is in the Constitution is in the date line 'in the year of our Lord', and added by a scribe AFTER the document was signed. 

And after thoughtful debate, reflection, and discourse; it was...

I believe that the author has conflated a theocracy with guiding principles.  If he wants to make the argument that this is NOT a Christian Theocracy and was never intended to be, not a single person would argue with him. To argue that the principles of religion did not play a part in the forming of this country, is demonstrably incorrect--as some of us have shown.

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.

America Was NOT Founded On Christian Principles

Thank God!

;^)

Seriously though, great article, well done.

Thank you. You are too kind.

I agree. Great article and look forward to more of them.

Religion was the 800lb gorilla in the room during the writing of the Constitution. Nearly every state had christianity/protestantism in their state constitutions, from requiring officials to declare they are christian or at least protestant to mandatory attendance, etc. The issue was the different protestant sects. The Danbury Baptists were seeking relief from Connecticut's tax supported official religion. The differences between the various protestant sects were NOT considered minor by their adherents and generally would lead to violence. 

You made some good points there Harry.

I should have noted that Virginia was the exception, as they removed references to religion in 1786, after considerable upheaval.

Religion and especially organized religion was and still is, used as a base of power to control populations. In 1787 that religion was Christianity. 

Well thought out article with great references inserted throughout.  

I'm just going to sit back and wait for the fireworks......has anyone seen X?

The weakness of the argument is best demonstrated by it's almost immaculate ability to ignore the Declaration of Independence while proposing to discuss the principles of the founders. Why  not discuss the principles of Christianity while ignoring the bible?

The Declaration is, of course, the document that defines the aspirations and principles of our country. The Constitution is a blueprint for governing that can be altered or discarded without destroying the nation. As the authors references, it's our second governing  compact, and there could be a third should the states so decide. It's why our country celebrated its 200th birthday in 1976, and not 1988.  The declaration is the nation's mission statement and it's raison d'etre. 

The reason the declaration is so scrupulously ignored is obvious. It blows the authors' thesis entirely out of the water. With their lives in the balance, the founders rallied around the most important declaration of principles in human history,  W e 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 is America in a nutshell.

This article explains it further:

As well, this text references “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and closes by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world” and noting the signers’ “reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” The Founders’ use of Christian rhetoric and arguments becomes even more evident if one looks at other statements of colonial rights and concerns such as the Suffolk Resolves, the Declaration of Rights, and the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms—to say nothing of the dozen explicitly Christian calls for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving issued by the Continental and Confederation Congresses. [15]

 heritage

W e 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 is America in a nutshell.

I wouldn't describe that passage as endorsing religious belief. It is a statement of the rights all people are presumed to have. Rights which justified the independence.

Rights which come from the creator, and that phrase also needs to be read in the context of the even more explicitly religious language used later in the Declaration. 

W e 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 . 

My creator was The Flying Spaghetti Monster...

RAMEN!

My creator was the combination of my mother and father.

Sauce be upon him.

Me we all become worthy to be drenched in his holy sauce! All other so-called gods on wish they had his huge and meaty balls!

I agree. Just because the federal government was prohibited from adopting Christianity (or any other religion) doesn't mean that the government wasn't, itself, founded on Christian principles.

Specifically, the 1st amendment makes it unequivocally clear that (unlike the states) the federal government is prohibited from adopting a religion. However, the Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that the freedoms enshrined in the constitution are derived from God and could not be eliminated by man. The declaration goes on to say that, if man abridges the freedoms bestowed by God, then the people have a right to rise up and abolish the government because God's law is paramount. The declaration was the unanimous opinion of all thirteen colonies and was the basis for war with Britain. 

doesn't mean that the government wasn't, itself, founded on Christian principles.

It wasn't! The government is secular (or is supposed to be) by design and must remain religiously neutral.

However, the Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that the freedoms enshrined in the constitution are derived from God and could not be eliminated by man.

Really? Where does it say that? If you're referring to "Nature's God," I already addressed that above. Funny how the Constitution, which actually enumerates our rights, does not mention anything aboput god or religion, save the freedom of.

The declaration goes on to say that, if man abridges the freedoms bestowed by God, then the people have a right to rise up and abolish the government because God's law is paramount.

What its saying is, if the government becomes tyrannical or oppressive, such as the case was with the King of England at that time, the people themselves can rise up against the government, just as the Founding Fathers did against the tyranny from the King of England.

"The freedoms bestowed by God" is such a ridiculous concept to begin with.  We are all free to murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat, etc. - as any Christian will reinforce by referencing God's gift of 'free will' - but there will be consequences if you're caught, and those consequences will be entirely secular.  If theists want to insist that there will be punishment in an afterlife, go right ahead - but stop conflating the here and now with the afterlife for fucks sake.  What happens here is a function of secular humanity.  There is obviously no god weighing in.

Free will, in the religious context, is such a farce.  When a concept applies to literally every living thing and everyone, and the opposite of said concept is nonexistent, it ceases to have any meaning whatsoever.  The only things that can be said to be void of 'God's free will', are inanimate objects, robots, and angels.  Show me a sentient organism, or even a primitive organism that doesn't have free will, and I will consider that the rest of the living world is somehow special in that respect.  Even amoebas have been show to exhibit free will.

doesn't mean that the government wasn't, itself, founded on Christian principles.

It wasn't! The government is secular (or is supposed to be) by design and must remain religiously neutral.

Although the federal government was intended to be secular the very principles on which the government was founded are based in religion. Most of the 13 colonies had official Christian religions and the others supported the Christian religion in some form. They created a secular federal government, not because they espoused secularism, but because they didn't want a federal government picking a Christian sect and then enforcing a particular religious view on everybody else as had happened in England. Religious freedom, not the pursuit of secularism, is the reason why many left England and came here.

However, the Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that the freedoms enshrined in the constitution are derived from God and could not be eliminated by man.

Really? Where does it say that? If you're referring to "Nature's God," I already addressed that above. Funny how the Constitution, which actually enumerates our rights, does not mention anything aboput god or religion, save the freedom of.

The constitution didn't need to make a reference to God because all understood that they were creating a nation under God, advocating the principles of inalienable rights granted by God himself, even though they wanted the federal government to be prohibited from adopting an official religion.

The Declaration of Independence refers to the "Laws of Nature" and of "Nature's God." To the extent that these are two different concepts (in that day), the declaration declares them to be one and, as I have already pointed out, specifically states that our inalienable rights have their source, not in the grant of a man (in the form of a king or secular government) but from the "Creator" (capital "C" in the document). The declaration concludes by saying that "And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of 'Divine Providence', we mutually pledge to each other our lives and fortunes and our sacred honor." Divine Providence is an unequivocal reference to God.  

The declaration goes on to say that, if man abridges the freedoms bestowed by God, then the people have a right to rise up and abolish the government because God's law is paramount.

What its saying is, if the government becomes tyrannical or oppressive, such as the case was with the King of England at that time, the people themselves can rise up against the government, just as the Founding Fathers did against the tyranny from the King of England.

The basis for saying that the people have a right to rise up against their government is because, as clearly stated earlier in the declaration. the rights granted by God cannot be alienated by man (even a king) and that religious view is the very basis for separating from England and establishing a separate government.

The basis for saying that the people have a right to rise up against their government is because, as clearly stated earlier in the declaration. the rights granted by God cannot be alienated by man (even a king) and that religious view is the very basis for separating from England and establishing a separate government.

I would disagree that  this indicates an intention to base the nation on religious principles. Declaring that a right is granted by God is a way of emphasizing the inviolability of that right and not at all necessarily an indication that the government depends on religious principles. You are simply making a conclusion not in evidence.

I would disagree that  this indicates an intention to base the nation on religious principles. Declaring that a right is granted by God is a way of emphasizing the inviolability of that right and not at all necessarily an indication that the government depends on religious principles. You are simply making a conclusion not in evidence.

I'm drawing a logical inference from the evidence available. The declaration tells all, who have ears to hear and eyes to see, that the country is founded on inalienable rights granted by God. It unequivocally states that these rights from God are the very basis for the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." To me, it couldn't be any clearer.

the very principles on which the government was founded are based in religion.

That's nice. Prove it! Show me where it says that in the Constitution!

Most of the 13 colonies had official Christian religions and the others supported the Christian religion in some form.

The colonies predates the drafting of the Constitution, as they were not yet a nation. The Constitution itself, which the colonies ratified, makes no reference to Christianity or any other religion.

They created a secular federal government, not because they espoused secularism, but because they didn't want a federal government picking a Christian sect and then enforcing a particular religious view on everybody else as had happened in England.

And it was realized that the states had to follow suit. Hence, the 14th Amendment applied religious neutrality to all states.

Religious freedom, not the pursuit of secularism, is the reason why many left England and came here.

I didn't say they pursued secularism. That is simply the logical and natural outcome of establishing a system where the government does not endorse or favor any religion over another or over non-religion.

The bible is as central to Christianity, as the Declaration is to the motivations of the founders. 

Again, irrelevant! The bible has nothing to do with the founding of this country or the Constitution.

So we agree the Declaration founded the nation yet you ignore it when discussing the motivations of our founders. You are making my point for me

The motivations of the Founding Fathers is made clear by the Constitution and in their works, which I have referenced. the "motivation" for the DoI was simply to establish our sovereignty as a nation form England. You seem to think there is more to it than that, and in contrast to the Constitution itself, which you also want to ignore.

Of course it can be discarded. We already discarded one system, the Articles of Confederation,  at a convention to amend it.

If you build a ship and it sinks, you're going to redesign it. Not build another of the same design. The Constitution replaced the Articles and has remained as the basis of our laws and government since its ratification, with Amendments passed along the way according to the specified Amendment process.

The states may decide to start from scratch at some point in the future.

Let me know when that happens and when you have something more substantial than pure speculation.

I thought we were talking about the founding

Actually, I was talking about what it was NOT founded on.

Do you even understand your own argument?

Far more than you apparently.

You've moved the goalposts from the indefensible "America was not founded on Christian principles" to the founders were establishing a religious based government.

Point out where I said the Founders established a religious based government! That's the exact opposite of what I said.

If you are simply trying to argue the Constitution didn't establish a theocracy and requires the government to be neutral between religions, well of course. No one is claiming it does.

That's only a part of it. I also argued that the Founding Fathers didn't use religion as the basis for the founding of this country.

It doesn't have to say it in the constitution because they quite clearly laid it out for you in the declaration. 

So you can't prove it. Duly noted.

There was no need to make reference to religion other than in the First Amendment. The fact that the colonies ceased to be colonies, once the nation was formed, is completely irrelevant

When there were colonies, we were not yet a nation. Once the nation was formed, the constitution laid out how that new nation was to be governed and what rights are now enjoyed. As the Constitution does not say either the law, government, or nation itself is based on any religious ideology, I'd say that is quite relevant.

The 14th amendment doesn't say anything of the sort and the states had no intention of abandoning state religions when the the 14th amendment was enacted.

I see you are unfamiliar with the Doctrine of Incorporation through the 14th Amendment.

The language used was overly broad and led the Supreme Court to read it to mean that the 14th amendment incorporates the bill of rights which includes the first amendment language prohibiting the federal government from adopting an official religion.

What makes you more of an expert on the Constitution than the SCOTUS?

To me, that's where you go off the track. The colonies were not trying to establish secularism because they fully intended to keep official state religions.

Once again, I never said they were trying to go for secularism as a goal itself. That is simply the logical outcome of maintaining religious neutrality and the separation of church and state.

It doesn't have to say it in the constitution because they quite clearly laid it out for you in the declaration. 

So you can't prove it. Duly noted.

The declaration proves it. Closing your eyes to the proof doesn't make it disappear.  

There was no need to make reference to religion other than in the First Amendment. The fact that the colonies ceased to be colonies, once the nation was formed, is completely irrelevant

When there were colonies, we were not yet a nation. Once the nation was formed, the constitution laid out how that new nation was to be governed and what rights are now enjoyed. As the Constitution does not say either the law, government, or nation itself is based on any religious ideology, I'd say that is quite relevant.

Relevant but not dispositive. The declaration states why all thirteen colonies believed they had the right to separate from England and they state quite clearly that it's based on rights granted by God. 

The 14th amendment doesn't say anything of the sort and the states had no intention of abandoning state religions when the the 14th amendment was enacted.

I see you are unfamiliar with the Doctrine of Incorporation through the 14th Amendment.

The Supreme Court read the language of the 14th amendment beyond the intent of the drafters. There was no discussion in congress at all of using the 14th amendment to abolish official state religions. 

The language used was overly broad and led the Supreme Court to read it to mean that the 14th amendment incorporates the bill of rights which includes the first amendment language prohibiting the federal government from adopting an official religion.

What makes you more of an expert on the Constitution than the SCOTUS?

If you know the context of the 14th amendment and the goal, then it should be obvious to you that the drafters were not addressing secular government in any respect whatsoever. 

To me, that's where you go off the track. The colonies were not trying to establish secularism because they fully intended to keep official state religions.

Once again, I never said they were trying to go for secularism as a goal itself. That is simply the logical outcome of maintaining religious neutrality and the separation of church and state.

I don't think prohibiting the federal government from adopting an official religion supports your position that the government is not founded on religious principles. All thirteen colonies declared exactly what they thought and they said their rights stem from God. It's those rights that they were protecting in the constitution. It's really quite clear when you read the documents together and understand the historical context. 

The declaration proves it. Closing your eyes to the proof doesn't make it disappear.  

That is only your belief. I already addressed the intention behind the DoI. That document mentions a "Creator" and "nature's god," but no other deities or even religion itself. Furthermore, the fact that it mentions a "Creator" and "nature's god" does not mean this nation or its government is founded or based on religion, as the Declaration of Independence is irrelevant as far as our laws and government are concerned. NO US court or attorney refers to the Declaration of Independence when citing precedent, nor do they refer to it for applicable law -- because it contains nothing but the words and intentions to create a nation completely separate from Great Britain. The only one closing their eyes here is you!

Relevant but not dispositive.

First you say it was irrelevant. Now you agree it is relevant. Thank you for contradicting yourself.

The declaration states why all thirteen colonies believed they had the right to separate from England and they state quite clearly that it's based on rights granted by God. 

Half right. They didn't specify any particular god. You also ignore the context in which it was written, which I also explained previously.

The Supreme Court read the language of the 14th amendment beyond the intent of the drafters. There was no discussion in congress at all of using the 14th amendment to abolish official state religions. 

Interpreting the Constitution and intent of the Founding fathers is the purpose of the SCOTUS. Why would Congress need to discuss anything? No new Amendments were being proposed or passed. Interpretations of existing Amendments is the purview of the judicial branch, especially the SCOTUS.

I don't think prohibiting the federal government from adopting an official religion supports your position that the government is not founded on religious principles.

In a way, it does. If the government is founded on religious principles, then why are those "principles" not laid out in the Constitution, much in the same way it lays out our rights? Why would the government adopt religious freedom and the separation of church and state, which would only contradict or potentially oppose any form of religious fealty or influence? The Founding Fathers and Constitution showed a distinct lack of religious influence in the creation of this country. Also, Article VI, Paragraph 3, of the US Constitution, which reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution of avoiding any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices. This is significant because this clause represents the words of the original Framers, even prior to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

The idea that the Founding Fathers used religion as the basis of this country or government is ludicrous and must be taken on, well, faith.

It's really quite clear when you read the documents together and understand the historical context. 

It's quite clear you don't really understand the context and seem to prefer to put an apologetic spin on it.

The declaration proves it. Closing your eyes to the proof doesn't make it disappear.  

That is only your belief. I already addressed the intention behind the DoI. That document mentions a "Creator" and "nature's god," but no other deities or even religion itself.

For Christians, there is only one God so they would refer to that God as "The Creator."

Furthermore, the fact that it mentions a "Creator" and "nature's god" does not mean this nation or its government is founded or based on religion, as the Declaration of Independence is irrelevant as far as our laws and government are concerned.

I don't know how much clearly they could make it for you. They themselves say their rights stem from God. If you want to inderstand the intent,of the drafters, then the declaration is a good place to start.

NO US court or attorney refers to the Declaration of Independence when citing precedent, nor do they refer to it for applicable law -- because it contains nothing but the words and intentions to create a nation completely separate from Great Britain. The only one closing their eyes here is you!

The fact that the declaration, itself, is not a law doesn't mean that it should be ignored as a tool in understanding the intent. But then you're not really trying to understand the intent. 

Relevant but not dispositive.

First you say it was irrelevant. Now you agree it is relevant. Thank you for contradicting yourself.

I wasnt contracdicting myself but the position may be too nuanced for you. Have it your way . . . it's all irrelevant. Lol

The declaration states why all thirteen colonies believed they had the right to separate from England and they state quite clearly that it's based on rights granted by God. 

Half right. They didn't specify any particular god. You also ignore the context in which it was written, which I also explained previously.

They only believed in one God so there was no need to specify a particular one.

The Supreme Court read the language of the 14th amendment beyond the intent of the drafters. There was no discussion in congress at all of using the 14th amendment to abolish official state religions. 

Interpreting the Constitution and intent of the Founding fathers is the purpose of the SCOTUS. Why would Congress need to discuss anything? No new Amendments were being proposed or passed. Interpretations of existing Amendments is the purview of the judicial branch, especially the SCOTUS.

I'm not sure what your talking about but every legislative action is debated in congress and so was the 14th amendment. Often, if you want to know the intent of the drafters (when language is ambiguous), you go to the legislative history. Courts do it all the time. I know the court's role and I can agree or disagree with anything they say.

I don't think prohibiting the federal government from adopting an official religion supports your position that the government is not founded on religious principles.

In a way, it does. If the government is founded on religious principles, then why are those "principles" not laid out in the Constitution, much in the same way it lays out our rights? Why would the government adopt religious freedom and the separation of church and state, which would only contradict or potentially oppose any form of religious fealty or influence? The Founding Fathers and Constitution showed a distinct lack of religious influence in the creation of this country.

It doesn't have to be laid out in the constitution because everybody understood it st the time and, in case anybody was confused, they eliminated it in the declaration.

Also, Article VI, Paragraph 3, of the US Constitution, which reads:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution of avoiding any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices. This is significant because this clause represents the words of the original Framers, even prior to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

All this establishes is a point not in dispute . . . the federal government is prohibited from adopting an official religion.

 

The idea that the Founding Fathers used religion as the basis of this country or government is ludicrous and must be taken on, well, faith.

No it's clear as a bell and, ironically, it's your view that rests on faith. 

It's really quite clear when you read the documents together and understand the historical context. 

It's quite clear you don't really understand the context and seem to prefer to put an apologetic spin on it.

What's quite clear to me is that you're bending over backwards to create confusion where there is none. I've made my point and I really don't need to keep repeating it. We can simply agree to disagree. Enjoy the day.

 doesn't mean that the government wasn't, itself, founded on Christian principles.

Please specify exactly what exclusively christian principles you're thinking of.  They need to be specifically and only christian principles that cannot be found in any number of other religions or secular philosophies.  

Please specify exactly what exclusively christian principles you're thinking of. They need to be specifically and only christian principles that cannot be found in any number of other religions or secular philosophies.

All thirteen colonies were composed of Christians who wouldn’t know any other religious principles other than their own regardless as to whether those principles are shared with some other religion.  

So, even though "don't kill" is a pretty universal principle, it's a Christian principle, only because they were ignorant?

So, even though "don't kill" is a pretty universal principle, it's a Christian principle, only because they were ignorant?

The fact that a principle is universal doesn't mean it's not part of Christianity. People go to church to learn about their own faith not take a course in comparative religion. 

We never said it's not part of Christianity.  But neither is it exclusively Christian.

We never said it's not part of Christianity. But neither is it exclusively Christian.

And I never said any principle was exclusively Christian because the point is irrelevant. The nation was founded by Christians and it was, and continues to be, overwhelmingly Christian. The entire basis for independence, as declared in the DOI, is that our rights are inalienable because they come from God, The Creator, and that insurrection is justified because a man (the king) attempted to take away what God himself had given. Those inalienable rights are set forth in the Constitution as liberties so the two documents are connected, even if the DOI itself is not law. 

Religious affiliations of the founding fathers

What I find amusing in articles such as these is they never mention just what principles they believe the nation was founded upon.(socialism)? Perhaps.

Religion key:

CO = Congregationalist DE = Deist DR = Dutch Reformed EP = Episcopal LU = Lutheran ME = Methodist PB = Presbyterian QU = Quaker RC = Roman Catholic

usconstitution

Deist just means they were smart enough not to buy into all of the dogma of their faith.Thomas Jefferson ( not on that list) went through the bible removing what he found not likely factual.

smithsonianmag

He is on this list, however.

usconstitution

Us pagans, we were tossed out early in American history, so I know the nation was not founded on pagan principles.(LOL)

It didn't take long for the free-thinking Morton to draw the ire of the nearby Puritans. His prosperous, easygoing colony attracted escapees from the harsh, hunger-ridden regime of the Plymouth plantation. Morton had no compunctions about trading guns to his Indian friends, whom the Puritans viewed as hostile savages. They resented Morton's intellectual scorn for their fundamentalist pieties, which he thought simply masked their stupidity and greed. (Morton made up mocking names for the Puritan leaders — the diminutive soldier Miles Standish he called "Captain Shrimpe," and the pompous John Endicott he dismissed as "that great swelling fellow, Captain Littleworth.") The Puritans condemned Morton as an impious, drunken libertine who — worst sin of all — consorted with the native women and encouraged his men to do so, too.

The final straw for the Puritans came when Morton erected his great Maypole, renamed his colony (from Mt. Wollaston to "Merry Mount" — or "Ma-re Mount," punning on the Latin word for "sea"), and threw a merrie olde pagan MayDay party to help woo Indian wives for his young bachelors. Morton penned a courtly poem for the occasion full of references to Greek mythology and gods and goddesses "which although it were made according to the occurrents [fashions] of the time," he later wrote, "puzzled the Separatists [as the Puritans were then called] most pitifully to expound it.

oldenwilde

kpr37 with a pagan's perspective.

nation was founded by Christians and it was, and continues to be, overwhelmingly Christian.

That just means it's a nation with many Christians. not that it was founded based on Christianity nor is it a "Christian nation/country."

The entire basis for independence, as declared in the DOI, is that our rights are inalienable because they come from God, The Creator, and that insurrection is justified because a man (the king) attempted to take away what God himself had given.

The basis of our rights is that we as individuals have rights. It's not about "where" those rights come from. Rights are inherent to being a born individual. Using "Creator" put it in terms the King of England or other individuals would understand.

Those inalienable rights are set forth in the Constitution as liberties so the two documents are connected, even if the DOI itself is not law.

And neither document establishes any sort of religious ideology as the basis for this government, especially the Constitution!

And neither document establishes any sort of religious ideology as the basis for this government, especially the Constitution!

I never claimed it did. What principles do you believe this nation was founded upon?

Where did said "principles" originate. Remember, I am not a Christian. I have had this discussion before on Newsvine many times and have linked various state constitutions in support of my beliefs. My state's constitution, Massachusetts, is explicitly Christian in nature, so are others, yet the same founders established a secular nation on, in my opinion, Judea /Christian, Greek pagan principles. Jefferson mentioned the Greek influence on his beliefs in the structure/ nature of a nation/state.

What principles do you believe this nation was founded upon?

Liberty and freedom.

Where did said "principles" originate.

There is no one unique or exclusive source. It's a concept expanded on by the Founding Fathers.

Remember, I am not a Christian. I have had this discussion before on Newsvine many times and have linked various state constitutions in support of my beliefs. My state's constitution, Massachusetts, is explicitly Christian in nature, so are others, yet the same founders established a secular nation on, in my opinion, Judea /Christian, Greek pagan principles.

State Constitutions do not override the US Constitution. Many colonies established their own form of religious basis before they became states, like mini-theocracies. But most instances of state-supported religion were removed before 1850, and the remaining requirements became null and void after the passing of the 14th Amendment on July 28, 1868. New Hampshire and North Carolina removed the nullified religious references from their state constitutions in 1875 and 1877 respectively. The US Constitution itself notably and intentionally does not make any reference to any religious ideology, especially in regard as a foundation. It is secular by design.

And yet, Mr. Adams says this, in his Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America:

 It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.

Now, let's examine your source a little more closely, shall we:

The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God

This is a patchwork of three phrases taken from a letter (28 June 1813) to Thomas Jefferson juxtaposed to give a misleading impression of Adams’ meaning:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were …

… the general principles of Christianity …

I will avow, that I … believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God….

The omissions here are easily significant enough to see. Understanding this passage involves going back to the year 1798, when John Adams was president of the United States. While the nation attempted to maintain neutrality in the ongoing war between Great Britain and revolutionary France, the French started seizing American vessels, leading to an undeclared war. It was in this context that a group of young men from Philadelphia wrote to Adams to express their support for his actions:

The youth of the American nation will claim some share of the difficulty, danger, and glory of its defense; and although we do not hold ourselves competent to form an opinion respecting the tendency of every measure, yet we have no hesitation in declaring that we place the most entire confidence in your wisdom, integrity, and patriotism; that we regard our liberty and independence as the richest portion given to us by our ancestors; that we perceive no difference between the illegal and oppressive measures of one government and the insolent attempts now made to usurp our rights by another; that as our ancestors have magnanimously resisted the encroachments of the one, we will no less vigorously oppose the attacks of the other; that at the call of our country we will assemble with promptitude, obey the orders of the constituted authorities with alacrity, and on every occasion act with all the exertion of which we are capable; and for this we pledge ourselves to you, to our country, and to the world.

John Adams returned a polite reply, in which he ventured to give some paternal advice:

It would neither be consistent with my character, nor yours, on this occasion, to read lessons to gentlemen of your education, conduct, and character; if, however, I might be indulged the privilege of a father, I should with the tenderest affection recommend to your serious and constant consideration, that science and morals are the great pillars on which this country has been raised to its present population, opulence, and prosperity, and that these alone can advance, support, and preserve it.

Without wishing to damp the ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that, after the most industrious and impartial researches, the longest liver of you all will find no principles, institutions, or systems of education more fit, in general, to be transmitted to your posterity, than those you have received from your ancestors.

Thomas Jefferson was then vice-president under Adams, and he favored policies entirely at odds with his. Something about this seemed to sum up for him a basic difference between the Federalists’ view and his own, and years later (on 15 June 1813) he wrote to Adams about it:

One of the questions, you know, on which our parties took different sides, was on the improvability of the human mind in science, in ethics, in government, etc. Those who advocated reformation of institutions, pari passu with the progress of science, maintained that no definite limits could be assigned to that progress. The enemies of reform, on the other hand, denied improvement, and advocated steady adherence to the principles, practices and institutions of our fathers, which they represented as the consummation of wisdom, and acme of excellence, beyond which the human mind could never advance. Although in the passage of your answer alluded to, you expressly disclaim the wish to influence the freedom of inquiry, you predict that that will produce nothing more worthy of transmission to posterity than the principles, institutions and systems of education received from their ancestors.

Adams, in his reply (28 June 1813), disclaims any such general application of his words. He limits the “principles … received from their ancestors” to two areas: “the general principles of Christianity … and the general principles of English and American liberty”. What did he mean by “the general principles of Christianity”? He doesn’t spell them out in the letter, but they are principles held in common by a diverse range of beliefs, including “Roman Catholics, … Presbyterians, Methodists, … Universalists, … Deists and Atheists ….” In other words, Adams had in mind the common system of morals held by all humankind throughout history. And far from giving it the unique status implied by the patchwork quotation, he couples “the general principles of Christianity” throughout with “the general principles of English and American liberty”.

Here is what Adams wrote to Jefferson, with the selected passages in bold:

Now, compare the paragraph in the answer with the paragraph in the address, as both are quoted above, and see if we can find the extent and the limits of the meaning of both.

Who composed that army of fine young fellows that was then before my eyes? There were among them Roman Catholics, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anabaptists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists, Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants, and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists, and Protestants “qui ne croyent rien.” Very few, however, of several of these species; nevertheless, all educated in the general principles of Christianity, and the general principles of English and American liberty.

Could my answer be understood by any candid reader or hearer, to recommend to all the others the general principles, institutions, or systems of education of the Roman Catholics, or those of the Quakers, or those of the Presbyterians, or those of the Methodists, or those of the Moravians, or those of the Universalists, or those of the Philosophers? No. The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were the only principles in which that beautiful assembly of young men could unite, and these principles only could be intended by them in their address, or by me in my answer. And what were these general principles? I answer, the general principles of Christianity, in which all those sects were united, and the general principles of English and American liberty, in which all those young men united, and which had united all parties in America, in majorities sufficient to assert and maintain her independence. Now I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system. I could, therefore, safely say, consistently with all my then and present information, that I believed they would never make discoveries in contradiction to these general principles. In favor of these general principles, in philosophy, religion, and government, I could fill sheets of quotations from Frederic of Prussia, from Hume, Gibbon, Bolingbroke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, as well as Newton and Locke; not to mention thousands of divines and philosophers of inferior fame.

If the passage as given above can really be considered a fair summary of the entire passage, then so can this version, emphasizing the other elements Adams gave as the “general principles on which the fathers achieved independence”:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were … the general principles of English and American liberty … I will avow, that I then believed and now believe that … those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system.

Obviously neither version is a fair representation of the original. Each leaves out one essential element in the original mix so that even though these extracts are made up of Adams’ own words, the overall quotation (particularly sans ellipses) is as dishonest as the Patrick Henry “religionists” misattribution or the Washington “impossible to govern without the Bible” concoction. One of the sites given above promotes all three of these fake quotations, and has the gall to attempt to justify them as follows:

As Adams went on to observe to Jefferson:

I might have flattered myself that my sentiments were sufficiently known to have protected me against suspicions of narrow thoughts, contracted sentiments, bigoted, enthusiastic, or superstitious principles, civil, political, philosophical, or ecclesiastical.

Apparently not.

Just know that reality stands in stark contrast to your beliefs.

I've made no mention of my beliefs.

This is a patchwork of three phrases taken from a letter (28 June 1813) to Thomas Jefferson juxtaposed to give a misleading impression of Adams’ meaning:

Yes, I'm certain the American government did that just so I could fool you with false impressions.Do you know that I am not responsible for the formatting of the source? right?  Geologists often do the same thing with the age of the earth, I'm told. (LOL) Funny how that works. There is a never-ending line of "reasoning", supporting a set of beliefs. I use that word as a mocking indictment of said beliefs 

See the source that I linked from.( archives ) That is the home page of my source.

As I said ideologues need to force reality into their grand vision. See continuing belief in a 6000-year-old earth.   Good company you are keeping. Sound, intelligent, so very progressive.

I've made no mention of my beliefs.

Your beliefs I refer to, are the subject of your article.

The basis of our rights is that we as individuals have rights. It's not about "where" those rights come from. Rights are inherent to being a born individual. Using "Creator" put it in terms the King of England or other individuals would understand.

The nation, itself, was founded on the Christian principle that rights come from God, The Creator, and are inalienable. There might be some confusion if the DOI hadn't been written but, once written, it removed all "reasonable" doubt.

Those inalienable rights are set forth in the Constitution as liberties so the two documents are connected, even if the DOI itself is not law.

And neither document establishes any sort of religious ideology as the basis for this government, especially the Constitution!

I never stated or remotely implied that the federal government has a religious ideology. In fact, I expressly recognized that the first amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion.

The nation, itself, was founded on the Christian principle that rights come from God, The Creator, and are inalienable.

Wrong! The Founding Fathers made it quite clear that the nation was not founded on any religious ideology, both through the Constitution and through their own writings! John Adams could not have made that any clearer!

I never stated or remotely implied that the federal government has a religious ideology. In fact, I expressly recognized that the first amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion.

Precisely as the Founding Fathers intended. But it's quite the stretch to assume they intended this country based on a religious ideology when they did not incorporate any of that into the Constitution or the government by and for the people.

The nation, itself, was founded on the Christian principle that rights come from God, The Creator, and are inalienable.

Wrong! The Founding Fathers made it quite clear that the nation was not founded on any religious ideology, both through the Constitution and through their own writings! John Adams could not have made that any clearer!

Their personal writings are irrelevant. When they made a declaration on behalf of thirteen colonies, they told you that their inalienable rights come from God, not man. 

I never stated or remotely implied that the federal government has a religious ideology. In fact, I expressly recognized that the first amendment prohibits the federal government from establishing a religion.

Precisely as the Founding Fathers intended. But it's quite the stretch to assume they intended this country based on a religious ideology when they did not incorporate any of that into the Constitution or the government by and for the people.

If you mean that the founding fathers never intended that the country be governed based on religious ideology, then I agree and have said that over and over. However, they clearly stated that their inalienable rights come from God. Now you can bang your head on the table all you want but they wrote out what they think in the DOI. 

Their personal writings are irrelevant.

In other words, their writing prove you wrong so you want to proclaim they're irrelevant. Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding! Their writings provide a clear insight in regards to their intentions behind the founding of this country or in matters of the Constitution. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is arguable the most famous example!

When they made a declaration on behalf of thirteen colonies, they told you that their inalienable rights come from God, not man. 

That's your interpretation.

If you mean that the founding fathers never intended that the country be governed based on religious ideology, then I agree and have said that over and over. However, they clearly stated that their inalienable rights come from

Specify where they "clearly stated" our rights come from god! Obviously, it's not as clear as you want to make it out. Neither is "god" mentioned anywhere in the founding documents!

Now you can bang your head on the table all you want but they wrote out what they think in the DOI. 

According to you, that should be as irrelevant as their other writings!  It seems like the only one banging their head here is you! But I'd imagine that's due to the frustration that your entire argument is based solely on one ambiguous word in the DoI, which itself doesn't even establish our country's government or system of laws for the people. But hey, keep grasping at those straws if it makes you feel better.

Their personal writings are irrelevant.

In other words, their writing prove you wrong so you want to proclaim they're irrelevant. Your intellectual dishonesty is astounding! Their writings provide a clear insight in regards to their intentions behind the founding of this country or in matters of the Constitution. Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is arguable the most famous example!

I’ll try and break this down for you. I don’t care what each of them thought individually. They didn’t declare independence on behalf of themselves but on behalf of thirteen Christian colonies not thirteen colonies of deists or atheists or Buddhists or hippies. 

When they made a declaration on behalf of thirteen colonies, they told you that their inalienable rights come from God, not man.

That's your interpretation.

It requires no interpretation. I’m reading what they wrote. 

If you mean that the founding fathers never intended that the country be governed based on religious ideology, then I agree and have said that over and over. However, they clearly stated that their inalienable rights come from

Specify where they "clearly stated" our rights come from god! Obviously, it's not as clear as you want to make it out. Neither is "god" mentioned anywhere in the founding documents!

The DOI references “The Creator”. God and the Creator are one in the same.

I'd imagine that's due to the frustration that your entire argument is based solely on one ambiguous word in the DoI, which itself doesn't even establish our country's government or system of laws for the people. But hey, keep grasping at those straws if it makes you feel better.

I’m not at all frustrated or grasping at straws. The founders wrote unambiguously and stated what they wanted all to see. You chose to ignore it. I do not. 

The nation, itself, was founded on the Christian principle that rights come from God,

I'd  love to know what part of the old or new testaments you can cite that this  god gives any "rights" to man, particularly the rights of life, liberty and to pursue happiness.  Jefferson apparently believed that but I he neither wrote nor even cited scripture as a source.  

The entire basis for independence, as declared in the DOI, is that our rights are inalienable because they come from God, The Creator,

God is never mentioned.

A Creator is mentioned, but never specified.  My parents are my creators.

Christianity cannot lay claim to principles that are followed by those of other religions, or not religion.

Christian principles say there is one god, in trinity, and he is the only god we are to worship.  US law says we can worship any god(s) we choose, or no god at all.  

All thirteen colonies were composed of Christians who wouldn’t know any other religious principles other than their own regardless as to whether those principles are shared with some other religion. 

That stunning evasion and complete non-answer to my question reveals just how bereft your case has been all along.  

All thirteen colonies were composed of Christians who wouldn’t know any other religious principles other than their own regardless as to whether those principles are shared with some other religion.

That stunning evasion and complete non-answer to my question reveals just how bereft your case has been all along.

You had a question embedded in your blather?

You had a question embedded in your blather?

Yes, he did. I guess you can't answer it!

You had a question embedded in your blather?

Yes, he did. I guess you can't answer it!

Pose the question again.

The weakness of the argument is best demonstrated by it's almost immaculate ability to ignore the Declaration of Independence while proposing to discuss the principles of the founders.

The DoI does not make or establish our system of laws and government. the Constitution does, which makes no reference to any religious ideology. Funny how your post wants to ignore the Constitution itself.

Why  not discuss the principles of Christianity while ignoring the bible?

The bible is not the topic of discussion. Neither does it make or have any say in our secular laws, and never did!

The Declaration is, of course, the document that defines the aspirations and principles of our country.

Wrong! The DoI establishes our sovereignty as a nation and lists our grievances with the King of England. Nothing more.

The Constitution is a blueprint for governing that can be altered or discarded without destroying the nation.

Altering the Constitution is not an easy process. And I'm not sure where you get the idea it can be discarded. Unless our government is overthrown and a different form takes its place. But I don't see that happening. Otherwise, see my first statement!

It's why our country celebrated its 200th birthday in 1976, and not 1988.  The declaration is the nation's mission statement and it's raison d'etre. 

America's B-day is based around it decree of independence. What's your point?

The reason the declaration is so scrupulously ignored is obvious. It blows the authors' thesis entirely out of the water.

See first statement!

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. 

Do you even understand what it means? The Founders weren't establishing a religious based government or nation.

As well, this text references “the laws of nature and of nature’s God”

"Nature's God" is quite the ambiguous term. It means the Founding Fathers acknowledged that people may have different beliefs and the beliefs of the individual was their own business and no one else's, as it applied to only the individual. It's odd the Founding Fathers simply didn't say the "Christian God" or just plain "God." Instead, the deliberately stated "Nature's God." In the context of the DoI, the inference was that man as an individual has or is presumed to have rights by virtue of being born.

The Founders’ use of Christian rhetoric and arguments becomes even more evident

Not anywhere in the Constitution it doesn't!

the dozen explicitly Christian calls for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving issued by the Continental and Confederation Congresses

Which has nothing to do with the actual founding of this country. It's simply expressions of religious fealty.

Funny how your post wants to ignore the Constitution itself.

America was founded prior to the Constitution, in 1776.  So if we are discussing the motivations of the founders, , it makes sense to focus on the most famous statement of motivating principles in American, if not world, history that the founders published at the time of our country's actual founding. 

Moreover, since you've staked out the absolutist position that that America was not founded on Christian principles I need only show evidence of the founders espousing Christian principles at the founding to rebut your premise. It's the advantage of not taking an absolutist position.  And what better evidence of the founders principles is our nation's founding document, whose religious verbiage speaks for itself.

The bible is not the topic of discussion.

I don't think you get the metaphor. Let me make it explicit. The bible is as central to Christianity, as the Declaration is to the motivations of the founders. 

e DoI establishes our sovereignty as a nation

So we agree the Declaration founded the nation yet you ignore it when discussing the motivations of our founders. You are making my point for me. 

Altering the Constitution is not an easy process. And I'm not sure where you get the idea it can be discarded.

Of course it can be discarded. We already discarded one system, the Articles of Confederation,  at a convention to amend it. The nation existed before the Constitution and could exist afterwards. The people may decide to start from scratch at some point in the future.  After all, it's the Declaration that declares, "The people have the right to choose the form of government under which they shall live and to install such government as they deem appropriate to secure their liberty, security, and happiness."

merica's B-day is based around it decree of independence. What's your point?

I thought we were talking about the founding. 

Do you even understand what it means? The Founders weren't establishing a religious based government or nation.

Do you even understand your own argument? You've moved the goalposts from the indefensible "America was not founded on Christian principles" to claiming the Constitution does not establish  a religious based government.  Those are two entirely separate discussions. Maybe you don't understand the distinction, but there is a massive one. 

If you are simply trying to argue the Constitution didn't establish a theocracy and requires the government to be neutral between religions, well of course. No one is claiming it does.

America was founded prior to the Constitution, in 1776.

As British colonies, under control of the Crown.

Moreover, since you've staked out the absolutist position that that America was not founded on Christian principles I need only show evidence of the founders espousing Christian principles at the founding to rebut your premise.

Be my guest!

And what better evidence of the founders principles is our nation's founding document, whose religious verbiage speaks for itself.

Let's see: The Constitution itself, which the Founders drafted and their works and writings (some of which I referenced), which gives a clear insight to their thoughts and motivations regarding the founding of this country.

As of July 4th, 1776 they were no longer British Colonies; they were Nation States. Now tell me on what date the U.S. Constitution was officially adopted that established us as The United States of America.  Was it prior to or after 7/4/1776? Maybe after you consider this question, you will see the folly in this exchange:

America was founded prior to the Constitution, in 1776.

That is when we signed the DoI.

As British colonies, under control of the Crown.

Not after 1776, but well before the adoption of the U.S. Constitution

As of July 4th, 1776 they were no longer British Colonies; they were Nation States.

We were merely a declared sovereign nation. But we didn't establish what the nation itself would be built upon until the ratification of the Constitution.

Sorry, you are incorrect:

In the Congressional declaration dated September 9, 1776, the delegates wrote, “That in all continental commissions, and other instruments, where, heretofore, the words ‘United Colonies’ have been used, the stile be altered for the future to the “United States.”

A resolution by Richard Henry Lee, which had been presented to Congress on June 7 and approved on July 2, 1776, issued the resolve, “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States….” As a result, John Adams thought July 2 would be celebrated as “the most memorable epoch in the history of America.” Instead, the day has been largely forgotten in favor of July 4 , when Jefferson’s edited Declaration of Independence was adopted. That document also states, “That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES.” However, Lee began with the line, while Jefferson saved it for the middle of his closing paragraph.

America was founded prior to the Constitution, in 1776. 

OMG, the ignorance in that is Everestian.  Let's start off by you telling us what nation is named "America." 

Sean we generally tend to agree on most things so, that being said, I really hate to do this to ya, but words mean things. (even back in 1776, we must remember TJ was selected to write the Declaration cause he was the best writer they had)

Quote:

they are endowed by their Creator

Who are they?

The individuals who make up a nation.

In that context, what is the reference to their?

Singular possessive case. referring to something that was theirs and theirs alone..... Their Creator....

The people are endowed by whomever THEY believe their creator to be...

THEIR CREATOR..... Not god, not christ, not our creator, not who the founders thought the creator was...

THEIR CREATOR......

Your arguments are lost right there. Jefferson's own words as written by him in the Declaration of Independence....

That was too easy...

Here we go, again.  Same song, second verse, lets hum!

It was indeed founded on Christian principles by Christians.  And, all of us know that the Constitution speaks of "no government religion" which does not mean separation of church and state.  It simply means there will be no government religion as in England.  In every nook and corner of the Constitution and thereafter, there was the word God. 

The rotunda in the House of Representatives was used as a church.  There are statues, carvings all over the place on the Capitol grounds depicting God's presence. 

And, because we don't have a government religion it means that we can embrace ALL religions whether Christian or any other religion.  That is a wonderous happening created by our Founding Fathers. 

Nowhere on the face of this Earth has a document been so profoundly the very essence of freedom.  It boggles my brain what these men must have encountered mentally and physically to envision and create a Nation the likes of the United States of America. 

It was indeed founded on Christian principles by Christians. 

Demonstrably false! I defy you to prove otherwise!

And, all of us know that the Constitution speaks of "no government religion" which does not mean separation of church and state.  It simply means there will be no government religion as in England. 

We do have a separation of church and state, per the intentions of the Founding Fathers and the 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

In every nook and corner of the Constitution and thereafter, there was the word God.

Specify where!

The rotunda in the House of Representatives was used as a church.  There are statues, carvings all over the place on the Capitol grounds depicting God's presence. 

Expressions of religious fealty does not mean this country was based on religion.

And, because we don't have a government religion it means that we can embrace ALL religions whether Christian or any other religion.  That is a wonderous happening created by our Founding Fathers. 

Indeed, which runs in stark contrast to the notion of the government/nation being based or founded on religion.

Nowhere on the face of this Earth has a document been so profoundly the very essence of freedom.

And nowhere in that document does it reference or even imply that this country was based on religion.

If America had been founded on christian principals it would not have survived, the infighting would have left it so weak the British would have retaken it or been divided by other powers.

Everyone is a Constitutional scholar!  Oh, it is so easy to cite and paste "learned" opinions on our Constitution as if that in itself is proof of what "their" opinion is.  We have a SCOTUS whose main purpose is to interpret this "gift".

I, actually, went back and read, again, both documents.  Show me, please, where it says separation of church and state and not there will be no state religion. 

All of our FFs were not diehard Christians, but they went to Church.  My ancestor so records show was a moderate. 

The women were very important during this time.  They kept a candle in the window; took care of the kids and household; cooked and served their husbands.  It must have been very tough on all of them.  Particularly, during the decisions and writing of the D of I. 

What a masterpiece!  DeVinci's Cistine Chapel is nothing compared to the brilliance of these men creating a Nation like ours.

Let me ask, please.  Why is it so important to some that it was not founded by Christian men and their principled selves through their beliefs?
. 

Let me ask, please.  Why is it so important to some that it was not founded by Christian men and their principled selves through their beliefs?

Because they think it will somehow diminish the God worshipers; kind of like how they think that judging people who lived back then by today's standards of what is PC, somehow will diminish the accomplishments of those who died  200 years ago

I truly don't understand it.  We are the youngest Country in the world that was envisioned by a group of men who saw promise of freedom for all and, yet, some ridicule the thought that they were Christian men.

You can be anything you want to be in the U.S.  You don't have to be Christian, but that is what our FFs were.  Like it or not!

Apparently,  you need to read the documents again. The Constitution expressly forbids the creation of a state religion. It also establushes the separation of church and state, both in the 1st Amendment. The SCOTUS itself, the Constitutional "scholar" that really matters, determined separation is in the Constitution in their landmark case: Reynolds v US  (1878).

As for the FF themselves, their religious beliefs is well known. Bur what difference does that, or their practice of religion make? They were also passionate secularists who felt one's religious belief was their own business and no one else's. That's 1 reason why they established the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state. Those ideas alone counter any notion that the FF based this country on any religious ideology. 

Let me ask you this: why is it so important to some theists, especially christians, that this country was founded on religion? It's almost like you're looking to have the christian religion validated by the government. 

I said it forbids a state religion!!!!!

The Christian religion as well as all others are validated by our government.  Freedom to practice any religion or none at all.  A Constitutional assurance.

An individual's personal religious beliefs or none as well as education, family teachings, friends, experiences in life all make up this person's inner core and, when elected, they bring all of this with them to all facets of the government. 

Our Nation is not based on religion, but was founded by religious men!

Thomas Jefferson's religious beliefs were nebulous at best. He even was accused of being an atheist. 

Here is an interesting POV from Monticello Institute.  

Thomas Jefferson  was always reluctant to reveal his  religious beliefs  to the public, but at times he would speak to and reflect upon the public dimension of religion. He was raised as an Anglican, but was influenced by English deists such as Bolingbroke and Shaftesbury. Thus in the spirit of the Enlightenment, he made the following recommendation to his nephew Peter Carr in 1787: "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear." 1  In Query XVII of  Notes on the State of Virginia , he clearly outlines the views which led him to play a leading role in the campaign to separate church and state and which culminated in the  Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom : "The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. ... Reason and free enquiry are the only effectual agents against error. 2  Jefferson's religious views became a major public issue during the bitter party conflict between Federalists and Republicans in the late 1790s when Jefferson was often accused of being an atheist.

I said it forbids a state religion!!!!!

Yes, and I said it also establishes a separation of church and state, which also forbids the state and religion from interfering with the other.

The Christian religion as well as all others are validated by our government. 

No, they are allowed and tolerated by our government. But the government cannot play favorites with religion.

Freedom to practice any religion or none at all.  A Constitutional assurance.

That is correct.

An individual's personal religious beliefs or none as well as education, family teachings, friends, experiences in life all make up this person's inner core and, when elected, they bring all of this with them to all facets of the government. 

The Founding Fathers were wise enough to keep their religious beliefs separate from the government. It's like having a job-you don't bring your personal issues with you to your job. 

Our Nation is not based on religion,

Thank you for agreeing with me. That's what I've been saying all along.

but was founded by religious men!

So? That doesn't make it a religious nation. If the Ford Focus was built by the most pious of Christians, does that make the Ford Focus a Christian car?

Why is it important whether or not America was founded on Christian principles....Are Christian principals better than any other religions principals or principals in general?

It isn't really.

There are some "Christian" principles that I am very thankful that America was not based on. And I agree that there really is no reason to think that "Christian" principles or beliefs are any better than any other religion or principles. 

Even if it were, there would be nothing but accusations and bashing among the "Christians" themselves as to which of their own beliefs and/or principles were the best. 

Religion is a personal choice, not a government one, no religion does not has any place in the governing of the lives of Americans. And that includes Christianity.

Just my two cents worth. 

Good time Charlie and Gordy--  Why don't both of you take a deep breath and step aside to read the CoC.  Personal attacks are not allowed here.  This is your last friendly warning!  D.

CoC

Also, stop flagging the same comments.  If a moderator doesn't act on a comment, we're not going to.  You have both received a friendly warning, and that's it.  Comments made before the friendly warning are not a part of the equation...

If they feel a need to go "tooth and nail" against each other rather than discussing the article, they should just leave this article and take it to the Heated Discussions group and be as belligerent there as they want, and spare the rest of us the ugliness.

They can't get in that group for 3 months...  oh well...

Pity. Oh well, if they can't control themselves like grownups they won't last that long here.

Yep.

We should keep in mind that they have come to NT from a much different environment and will need to learn the difference between the two and get their bearings of the new forum. It may take a bit of time to adjust to the new environment and rules, but, I am sure they will soon find level footing and enjoy the new venue. 

Agreed Raven, hence the stern warning. 

My apologies Dowser. I was simply defending myself against a defamation of character. Sorry if my replies crossed the line. I'll try to be more cognizant of that in the future. As for flagging, It didn't seem to register when I attempted to flag an offensive comment. So I wasn't sure if it went through or not. Repetitive flagging was not my intent.

That's ok, Gordy.  It's my job to make sure you know things...  Have a great day!  D.

Not being an American (but an expat Canadian living abroad) I have to say I'm somewhat confused by the arguments about America that religion and the bible have nothing to do with the country or its politics.

I was thinking about 3 of your most patriotic songs:

The Battle Hymn of the Republic contains the line "the coming of the glory of the Lord"

The Star Spangled Banner contains the line "And this be our motto: In God is our trust."

America the Beautiful contains the line "America! America! God shed His grace on thee..."

The American Pledge of Allegiance contains the line "...one nation under God..."

And to top it off, on your money you put the words "In God we Trust".

And you say America has nothing to do with God and religion?

And you say America has nothing to do with God and religion?

Actually, that is not what is being said in the article above.  There clearly is a reverence for a God in America, as you correctly point out in our songs, slogans, pledges, coinage and paper currency.  However our country is set up to allow each individual person the right to choose the God he or she wishes to revere, or even choose none at all.  America allows for the acceptance and reverence of God, but does not force a belief in any God on any of its citizens.

The actual title of the article above is

America Was NOT Founded On Christian Principles

And that is a FALSE statement.  

America was clearly founded on Christian Principles, but the belief in and adherence to Christianity itself was not codified into the law of the land, which is The Constitution of the United States of America.

America was founded on many principles, including Christianity, Greek and Roman democracy and republicanism, and so many more concepts plucked from other countries from around the world and throughout history. 

America is NOT a Christian country.  

America is a country where every religion is accepted, and still allows its citizens to reject any and all religions as they choose.  That is the nature of our basic rights and freedoms.

My knowledge of American History of course is not so complete as yours, but I did not disagree with, in fact I believe that, America WAS founded on Judeo-Christian principles at least in part.  I certainly cannot imagine that Buddhist, Shinto, Hindu or Muslim (Sharia) principles played any role in that regard.

I am not quite comfortable with this format for discussion, so please excuse me if my comments seem curt or rude.  I was simply trying to explain that while some people make false claims about American government history, I do try to clarify the facts.  You may indeed have been addressing someone else here, I can't really follow the thread yet.  But, whomever it was, if they gave you the impression that as you said

And you say America has nothing to do with God and religion?

then they gave you the wrong impression.  You were very correct in the examples you provided.  America, American traditions and even our government do recogonize the possibility of God and belief in same.  Our government was formed with Christian Principles, and many other principles from other sources as well.  But, our government does not require or force anyone to believe in any particular God or any god at all.  That is a personal decision we each have the freedom and right to decide for ourselves.  That's really all I was trying to convey.  I wasn't trying to do that in anything other than a factual way.  I did not mean for you or anyone to take offense, and I do apologize if it seemed that way.

America does have a lot to do with God, for those Americans who do believe in God.  Thank you for your comments.

=

By the way, given that Thomas Jefferson was an extremely well-read and highly educated man, and held key roles in all aspects of our country's formation and creation, it is entirely possible that some elements of other religions like Hindu, Shinto, Muslim and others you mentioned might also have been incorporated into the final product.  Since then we do know that Socialism, at least in the form of the Social Security System, has also been added to our government in an attempt to take the best ideas from all sources to make it a more perfect union.

Our government was formed with Christian Principles,

Demonstrably false! The government, and Constitution itself, is based on English Common law and the principles of enlightenment.

and many other principles from other sources as well.  

See previous statement.

That is a personal decision we each have the freedom and right to decide for ourselves.  That's really all I was trying to convey.

The Founding Fathers felt the same way. That's one reason why they didn't impose religious ideology into the Constitution or the founding of this country. They knew that to do so would only mirror what was occurring in England.

I did not mean for you or anyone to take offense, and I do apologize if it seemed that way.

none taken and no worries.

America does have a lot to do with God, for those Americans who do believe in God.

That applies to individual beliefs. Not to the nation, or its founding, as a whole.

And English Common Law and the principles of Enlightenment are based on what? Buddhism? 

And English Common Law and the principles of Enlightenment are based on what? Buddhism?

No, it predates widespread Christianity in Europe by about 200 years, and especially after the Norman Conquest. Some influences can be traced back to Roman law.

America is NOT a Christian country.  

I think that statement is true, in the original intent, only as applied to the federal government. It did not apply to the states, especially since most states had and continued to have official state Christian religions. The federal government was a construct of sovereign state bodies who only granted the federal government the limited authority set forth in the constitution. So I would say that the country was founded on Christian principles (as the Declaration of Independence and many other things make clear) and was also a Christian country because the actual country was arguably the state sovereign bodies not the federal government. This clear view was eroded by a much later Supreme Court interpretation of the post civil war 14th amendment that applied the Bill of Rights to the states (which, in effect, muddled the original distinction between the federal government and the states by extending the notion of a religions neutral government to the states themselves).

I think that statement is true, in the original intent, only as applied to the federal government. It did not apply to the states, especially since most states had and continued to have official state Christian religions.

It applies to all levels of government, especially after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The states had  a certain level of autonomy from the federal government, which we all know was a mistake.

I would say that the country was founded on Christian principles

And you would be wrong!

(as the Declaration of Independence and many other things make clear)

Where does the DoI say we are based on Christian principles? The Constitution and the Founding Fathers says otherwise!

This clear view was eroded by a much later Supreme Court interpretation of the post civil war 14th amendment that applied the Bill of Rights to the states

Merely your opinion. The SCOTUS' responsibility is the interpretation of the Constitution. They didn't seem to care for neoconfederate views of the Constitution.

I think that statement is true, in the original intent, only as applied to the federal government. It did not apply to the states, especially since most states had and continued to have official state Christian religions.

It applies to all levels of government, especially after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The states had  a certain level of autonomy from the federal government, which we all know was a mistake.

No, by its own terms, it applies only to the federal government. That is clear by the language of the first amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." The use of the word "Congress" is intended to restrict application to the federal government.

I would say that the country was founded on Christian principles

And you would be wrong!

In your opinion and it's an opinion that I don't share.

(as the Declaration of Independence and many other things make clear)

Where does the DoI say we are based on Christian principles? The Constitution and the Founding Fathers says otherwise!

This has been explained to you repeatedly but you find the explanation unpersuasive. I, however, think it eviscerates your argument entirely. Further argument is pointless because nothing new is being added. We are on opposite sides of the issue and will remain that way. We can just agree to disagree. 

This clear view was eroded by a much later Supreme Court interpretation of the post civil war 14th amendment that applied the Bill of Rights to the states

Merely your opinion. The SCOTUS' responsibility is the interpretation of the Constitution. They didn't seem to care for neoconfederate views of the Constitution.

And your view is merely your opinion not an indisputable fact. As it relates to this topic, I don't think the Supreme Court interpretation has anything whatsoever to do with rejecting a neoconfederate view but I won't debate that here. 

No, by its own terms, it applies only to the federal government. That is clear by the language of the first amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." The use of the word "Congress" is intended to restrict application to the federal government.

The federal (central) government is the basis on which the country itself was built, with the states connected to it, while retaining a degree of autonomy. The federal government had no basis in religion. Individual states may have had religious preferences, but that became moot with the 14th Amendment.

In your opinion and it's an opinion that I don't share.

You're free to have whatever opinion you want, even if it is wrong.

This has been explained to you repeatedly but you find the explanation unpersuasive.

Because the explanation is unpersuasive, as the DoI seems to be the only straw you can grasp.

And your view is merely your opinion not an indisputable fact.

Are you saying the SCOTUS does not have the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution?

The federal (central) government is the basis on which the country itself was built, with the states connected to it, while retaining a degree of autonomy. The federal government had no basis in religion. Individual states may have had religious preferences, but that became moot with the 14th Amendment.

The states are not connected to the federal government. The federal government was created by the states and they gave it limited authority while expressly reserving to themselves any authority not delegated to the government. 

In your opinion and it's an opinion that I don't share.

You're free to have whatever opinion you want, even if it is wrong.

You have that same right . . . to be wrong.

This has been explained to you repeatedly but you find the explanation unpersuasive.

Because the explanation is unpersuasive, as the DoI seems to be the only straw you can grasp.

Yet I have a straw while you have nothing (in my opinion).

And your view is merely your opinion not an indisputable fact.

Are you saying the SCOTUS does not have the responsibility of interpreting the Constitution?

Of course not. However, I can distinguish between your opinion and court rulings and, with regard to court opinions, I reserve the right to disagree with them just like I do with decisions of any branch of government. As you may know, judges routinely disagree with each other and earlier rulings can be overturned by subsequent courts. 

The states are not connected to the federal government. The federal government was created by the states and they gave it limited authority while expressly reserving to themselves any authority not delegated to the government. 

Without a federal government, the states are little more than small, independent nations of their own. If they're not connected, then that defeats the purpose of having a federal government.

You have that same right . . . to be wrong.

Except I'm not. But thanks anyway.

Yet I have a straw while you have nothing (in my opinion

Then you haven't been paying attention, especially to the article itself.

However, I can distinguish between your opinion and court rulings and, with regard to court opinions, I reserve the right to disagree with them just like I do with decisions of any branch of government. As you may know, judges routinely disagree with each other and earlier rulings can be overturned by subsequent courts. 

Whether you disagree or whether judges disagree or not is irrelevant. It's what the court itself ultimately rules on that matters.

Songs are merely artistic expressions. But they have nothing to do with the actual founding or basis of this country. As for "Under god" and "IGWT," those were not originally part of the Pledge or in the currency, respectively. They were added in the 1950's in response to the perceived "Red Scare" of Communism.

And you say America has nothing to do with God and religion?

That's not what I said. I said America wasn't founded on god or religion, as is indicated I the article. there is a difference.

Thank you, buzz, thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Buzz, Love ya brother, but I could factually eliminate every single reference you gave. None of them offer any reference to the government or the creation of this nation.

ALL were written several years if not decades AFTER the creation of this nation and with respect to the pledge and money, added by the government over 100 years after the creation of said nation after very heated debate in the congress.

I would have no problem with removing such religious reference on our money and the pledge. The other items you recount are references to the authors personal beliefs, the fact that some of them were unofficially adopted by certain official bodies of said government notwithstanding.

You know me well enough to know I will post the facts upon request my friend......

It is easy to see how someone would get the idea that this is a nation of Christians though cause it primarily is. But it is not officially.

Of course you're aware that I'm on the outside looking in and don't have the background in American History, so my comments were just observations on my part.  I really am not taking sides in this debate because I don't think I'm qualified to do so.  

In any event, you've been missed, by me and others. 

My friend, it has been my experience that many people outside this nation have a better understanding of what this nation was founded upon than many of the people that have lived here all their lives.

And that is sad.

I've missed you too my friend. will be stopping by from time to time to stay in touch.

It is easy to see how someone would get the idea that this is a nation of Christians though cause it primarily is. But it is not officially.

I assume that you mean the federal government is not officially Christian and that, unless the federal government is officially Christian, then the government cannot itself be founded on Christian principles. If that's what you're saying, then I disagree. Perhaps there is some confusion as to what is meant by "Christian principles" and you interpret it more narrowly than I do. 

That is the point my friend.

How does one define "Christian Principles" ? That is as individual a judgment as deciding what is right and wrong for themselves.

And since the only thing Christ did was absolve everyone from the law by making individual choice the only arbiter of salvation, we have both a correlation and conundrum....

The Founders were plain in the government they were creating was a government of choice in the form of a representative republic, that is a correlation with mainstream foundational Christian traditional teaching.

Now the Conundrum....

Some wish to interpret that as an absolute. Since they all held that one singular belief (no matter their individual ecclesiastic belief) and it is the one singular belief that underpins the creation of such a government, some make the claim that Christian Principles underlie the entirety of our government..

That can't be further from the truth and ALL the founders documents that relate to such discussions make that plain.

Just as there are many diverse understandings of what Christ actually taught, there are many diverse understandings of just how much direct influence such teachings had on the formation of our government.

Many of the Founders talk about Enlightenment teachings and Liberal thoughts as the basis for our government. (not liberal thinking as understood today)

No our government is not a religious government, and it was not founded upon religious teachings or tenants of any specific dogmatic religion.

So before any discussion can be had on this subject one has to understand a persons ideas on what constitutes "Religious Principles"

Cause everyone's ideals of this are different.

I don't believe mine are narrower that anyone else's, quite the contrary, I believe mine are more expansive than anyone else's.

Reason for that is I believe the way someone becomes a christian is to recognize your a sinner (not saved) ask your creator for salvation, (which has already been given) and then go on and be one.

The founders way to become a citizen, take up residence within the borders, obey it's laws, be of good moral character, and finally, say you are a citizen.

Hows that for a correlation?

Based upon that, can one say that applying Christian Principles is the way to become a citizen in the Founders ideal?

There are people in the religious dogmas that like to claim that they have the moral authority over everyone else on the basis of their beliefs most closely correlating with what they interpret as the Founders thinking.

Which the Founders were very careful to reject out of hand....

This is not a christian nation, and should never be one. if it ever becomes one then we have lost our republic and hence our freedom.

. . . This is not a christian nation, and should never be one. if it ever becomes one then we have lost our republic and hence our freedom.

To me, a Christian federal government is different than a Christian nation. The federal government was created by thirteen colonies, most of whom had official Christian religions. Whatever the founders may have written and thought privately, they made the position of the thirteen colonies clear and stated in the Declaration of Independence that there are certain inalienable rights that come from God, not from reason or from men and kings. The purpose of the declaration is to not only state that these God-given rights exist and cannot be abridged but also that the people have a duty to protect these rights through rebellion if necessary. Therefore, to me the nation was literally founded on a belief that man's law must give way to God's law (at least with respect to inalienable rights). I really don't know how they could have been any clearer. 

WE are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.

Yes, god as each individual understands his creator to be. Doesn't matter if it is the judeo/christian/muslim God, Vishnu, The Great Spirit, The grand architect of the universe, etc, etc, etc. No matter what you call him, they created us with these rights and all have them just by being....

That is not an endorsement of a particular god or religious principle.

There is no way anyone could make this an endorsement of any particular religion or religious principle.

It is a direct statement that no man can take away such rights.

Jefferson wrote those words specifically to avoid the appearance of any endorsements of specific dogmatic religions to separate the colonies from the British ideal that the Church of England had the power of government to decide for the people what they are to believe. and through government the church has actual power.

This actually counters the ideal that the Declaration was based upon religious principles instead of enlightenment principles.

WE are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights.

Yes, god as each individual understands his creator to be. Doesn't matter if it is the judeo/christian/muslim God, Vishnu, The Great Spirit, The grand architect of the universe, etc, etc, etc. No matter what you call him, they created us with these rights and all have them just by being....

That is not an endorsement of a particular god or religious principle.

Not as each individual understood the concept of God but as Christians in general understood it. They were Christian colonies, most of whom with their own official Christian religions, talking about their God. 

It wasn't just the 13 colonies you know, the territory covered extended all the way to the Mississippi River encompassing what was then known as the Northwest Territories or Indian Country. Also the natives were by act of the continental congress considered to be "Citizens" of said new nation, even if they weren't treated as such. Same with the slaves.

so there was a lot of religious ideal encompassed in that declaration as it was written for EVERYONE in the British part of North America...

The established colonies got the press cause that is where the press was.....

The ideal came from the enlightenment thinking of the previous 400 years, at least that is what I was taught and have researched myself.....

The problem here is that some wish to rationalize these ideals into what fits them and their ideals for today....

Something that has been going on since the start of recorded history.

I cannot buy into that, the facts prove otherwise my friend.

It wasn't just the 13 colonies you know, the territory covered extended all the way to the Mississippi River encompassing what was then known as the Northwest Territories or Indian Country. Also the natives were by act of the continental congress considered to be "Citizens" of said new nation, even if they weren't treated as such. Same with the slaves.so there was a lot of religious ideal encompassed in that declaration as it was written for EVERYONE in the British part of North America...

The natives may have been considered "citizens" but they were also considered Godless savages who could never be civilized unless and until they were converterd to Christianity. And the slaves were considered nothing more than subhuman property. The declaration was one of Independence from England for white people but continued subjugation to whites for others.

The established colonies got the press cause that is where the press was.....

They got the press because it was all about their freedom not anybody else's.

The ideal came from the enlightenment thinking of the previous 400 years, at least that is what I was taught and have researched myself.....

The Declaration makes no mention of enlightenment or reason. It declares the law of nature and God to be one and says quite clearly that all inalienable rights flow from God. As I said before, I think they were drawing s clear distinction between God-given rights and any other right given by man because God-given rights cannot be negated by man. To colonial Christians, there was only one God and it was the God in their Bible. 

The problem here is that some wish to rationalize these ideals into what fits them and their ideals for today....

Maybe so but that's not what I'm doing. I'm just giving my honest view of history based on many years of study. I respect your opinion but, on this topic, we have simply reached different conclusions. I think the world is big enough to accommodate the both of us. Always a pleasure talking to you NWM. Don't be a stranger. 

Going to try not to be a stranger my friend, but I won't be as active as I was in the past.

But this article and the out of context founders quotes used to defend defenseless positions always has got my attention in the past and that hasn't changed.

I do not for one second think your rationalizing like many on this article. I've been in too many conversations on both sides with you to think that, I know better.

But as usual when people start quoting the founders using partial quotes from quote sites and not their actual words in context, I usually correct the record. With the founders actual words.

So I'm waiting for any of them to take me up on it.

They don't know me from adam's red uncle so I suspect at least one of them will take me up on it...

Then we can have some real fun for a change, see how long it takes them to resort to insults....

See their true nature.

But any way brother, good to have the back and forth once again with someone who knows what discussion is about...

thank you..

. . . in fact, the signers of the declaration wouldn't have had the nerve to state that they were publicly declaring independence based on the wishes of Vishnu, the great spirit, or any other non-Christian deity, especially while Christian missionaries were hard at work converting heathens to "civilize" them. 

inalienable rights or God's law is a stand-in for natural rights, rights human beings have by virtue of their human nature.

Because these rights are mentioned by the founder's as coming from the Creator  does not mean they think the nation is based on religious principles. 

If they were all atheists they could have still arrived at "inalienable rights" . 

Because these rights are mentioned by the founder's as coming from the Creator  does not mean they think the nation is based on religious principles. 

They said their inalienable rights came from God.

If they were all atheists they could have still arrived at "inalienable rights". 

In my opinion, the obvious point of the statement is to make a distinction between rights given by men, which can be alienated by men, and rights given by God which are inalienable precisely because they are God-given. 

They said their inalienable rights came from God.

No, they said their rights came from "Nature's God." Big difference there. Nature's god was deist not christian. Not the biblical god. Not the christian god. That should be obvious by the fact that they deliberately refer to it not simply as "god" but as the Laws of Nature and Nature's God. They actually go out of their way to distinguish this god from just..."god".

In my opinion,

Which is all it is and nothing more!

the obvious point of the statement is to make a distinction between rights given by men, which can be alienated by men, and rights given by God which are inalienable precisely because they are God-given. 

If they meant god...they would have said god. Any Christian would have said "God". But they didn't. They said "creator", leaving it entirely open to the individual to imagine who or what that creator might be. Maybe allah. Maybe the universe. Maybe zeus. Maybe their mother. Maybe Nature. Nothing christian about that. In fact, they go out of their way, time and again to NOT say "god". It's ridiculously obvious. They could be referring to ANY deity or even mortal authority....they deliberately do not name one. No Christian would miss a chance to shove their god into a document like this....yet you don't see the christian god mentioned once.

. in fact, the signers of the declaration wouldn't have had the nerve to state that they were publicly declaring independence based on the wishes of Vishnu, the great spirit, or any other non-Christian deity, especially while Christian missionaries were hard at work converting heathens to "civilize" them. 

Why not? Many christians probably thought other ''gods" were "false" gods and absolutely would want to distance themselves from them, and attempt to sway other people from their own "gods" to the Christian god. That was the whole point of trying to convert others, was it not? After all, the Christian god certainly doesn't like it when you play with other gods.

lol   " " because they are God-given. ""

Nowhere Man,

How does one define "Christian Principles" ?

Aye, there's the rub!

As you demonstrate so well, this "debate" is largely semantic. Depending on how one defines the parameters, the conclusion is inevitable... and can be almost anything!

The Colonies were almost 100% "Christian". (About 1/1000 Jewish, and... nothing else...), so the men who wrote the founding documents were "Christian" if only by the fact of living their entire lives in a "Christian" ambiance. Their thinking was clearly influence by the Enlightenment, and just as clearly by the Bible. They followed the Parisian salons by intellectual choice; they followed the Bible because it impregnated them in the crib!

Is "promote the general Welfare" a "Christian Principle"? Of course! Did they include that idea in the Constitution because they were "Christians"? There is absolutely no reason to assume so.  So depending on how you phrase the question the answer may be "yes" or "no".

Good Comment.

I realize this is off topic, but

"Buh-Bye!"

seems very familiar.  It's not a phrase you see often, but I have seen it elsewhere.

On topic now, I simply want to point out I have read a number of your comments now and you seem to be arguing a different issue than what you titled your original article.

The article is titled America Was Not Founded On Christian Principles

Which I maintain it was.  (And I believe I have proved my point on that issue.) 

However, you seem to be arguing in subsequent statements that America is not a Christian Country or even run by a Christian Government, which I would agree with you on. 

America was set up to be a religiously free country, open to all religions and not controlled by any one over another.  If that is your corollary argument we have no disagreement.  But that is NOT the premise of your original article.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan — 'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.'  

However, you seem to be arguing in subsequent statements that America is not a Christian Country or even run by a Christian Government, which I would agree with you on.

That's the problem in a nutshell. He is conflating founding on principles with "theocracy" which would be mandated beliefs and worship. Even though it has been shown in example after example of actual quotes from founding documents that religion and its principles played key roles in the establishment of the United States, he keeps insisting there is no evidence to support this claim.  Its gotten to the point where we must all acknowledge that h has his opinion and nothing that disproves it will be accepted, so in effect, we are wasting our time with trying to change said opinion. 

He is conflating founding on principles with "theocracy" which would be mandated beliefs and worship.

Not at all. Founding on religious principles is a path to a theology, regardless if religious fealty is required or not.

Even though it has been shown in example after example of actual quotes from founding documents that religion and its principles played key roles in the establishment of the United States, he keeps insisting there is no evidence to support this claim. 

I've cited numerous primary sources and quotes from the Founding Fathers themselves in the article, which relate specifically to the founding of this nation, which proves you wrong!

Its gotten to the point where we must all acknowledge that h has his opinion and nothing that disproves it will be accepted, so in effect, we are wasting our time with trying to change said opinion. 

I've cited fact (not opinion), with original, primary sources to support the facts! If you want to disprove I, then start by refuting the Founding Fathers themselves. Perhaps with John Adams himself?

Its gotten to the point where we must all acknowledge that h has his opinion and nothing that disproves it will be accepted, so in effect, we are wasting our time with trying to change said opinion. 

Exactly.  And I will simply point out one last time that the article title is:

America Was NOT Founded On Christian Principles

which is a demonstrably proven FALSE statement.  His arguments subsequent to his thesis are all focused on the alternate issue that America is not a Christian Theocracy, which is true.  But the fact remains, even though America is not now and never really has been a 'Christian Country' it was, in fact, founded upon Christian Principles as well as others that were blended together to form this country and its government by its very Christian Founding Fathers.

And, having said that, I am finished.  There is no further point in discussing this issue with anyone who refuses to be honest regarding his own originally stated premise.

which is a demonstrably proven FALSE statement.

Hardly!

 His arguments subsequent to his thesis are all focused on the alternate issue that America is not a Christian Theocracy, which is true.

Better read it again.

  it was, in fact, founded upon Christian Principles.

Now that is a demonstrably false statement. It doesn't gat any more clear than John Adams and the Treaty of Tripoli: ""As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...."

It's right there in black and white!

According to Frank Lambert , Professor of History at Purdue University , the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers

And at least two SCOTUS judges have affirmed that we are founded on Christian principles in their rulings.

Which two and which decisions?

I for one would like to read them....

They should be available online....

Justice David J. Brewer and Justice George Sutherland. Brewer actually wrote a book on the topic.

Ok, which case decisions now....

Anything else is their private personal opinions, about as valuable as yours.

Copy their names these words:  Christian Principle : and then paste them into your search bar so you can't claim I'm promoting anyone in particulars view.

I am directing this comment to NWM, but also to all members at large.

THERE WILL BE NO SLAMMING, COMPARING, INSULTING NEWSVINE OR ANY MEMBER ON THERE, ON THIS SITE. THE NEXT TIME I SEE A COMMENT DOING THAT, YOU WILL EARN A 2 DAY SUSPENSION. 

The comment has been removed. 

That's cool, I can take a hint....

Do you mind if I engage his response below?

Or, on the other hand, in reality, is it even worth it......

Probably not.....

See ya later sweets...

I suppose just this once, I'll do your homework for you.  You see though, I made a statement and you have in effect called me a liar by questioning it.  Therefore it would be up to you to disprove what I said.  There is only one problem with that though, the proof of my claim exists--as you should know since you've stated that you are familiar with the matter.

For your edification:

In his Holy Trinity opinion, Justice Brewer wrote that “beyond all these matters no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.”He then gave a summary of America’s religious history and concluded that “this is a Christian nation”. Finally, he rhetorically asked “in the face of all these [utterances that this is a Christian nation], shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?”

Another case sometimes cited by “Christian nation” advocates: United States v. Macintosh (1931). It concerned an ordained Baptist minister who was denied naturalization because he was unwilling to take an oath swearing that he would bear arms in defense to be morally justified. In the opinion, Justice George Sutherland wrote, “We are a Christian people, according to one another the equal right of religious freedom, and acknowledging with reverence the duty of obedience to the will of God.” 3 ¹ It is however to be noted that the central finding of Macintosh was overturned fifteen years later.

Now I deliberately chose a site that argues against the Christian Right assertions otherwise, just to show that these really did happen and aren't just some bogus claims made by the CR supporters on some blog--as shown by those on the same side of the argument as yourself!  They (your side) provided the evidence you question.

According to Frank Lambert , Professor of History at Purdue University , the assurances in Article 11 were "intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers." Lambert writes,

"By their actions, the Founding Fathers made clear that their primary concern was religious freedom, not the advancement of a state religion. Individuals, not the government, would define religious faith and practice in the United States. Thus the Founders ensured that in no official sense would America be a Christian Republic. Ten years after the Constitutional Convention ended its work, the country assured the world that the United States was a secular state, and that its negotiations would adhere to the rule of law, not the dictates of the Christian faith. The assurances were contained in the Treaty of Tripoli of 1797 and were intended to allay the fears of the Muslim state by insisting that religion would not govern how the treaty was interpreted and enforced. John Adams and the Senate made clear that the pact was between two sovereign states, not between two religious powers

And at least two SCOTUS judges have affirmed that we are founded on Christian principles in their rulings.

Buublegum!

And at least two SCOTUS judges have affirmed that we are founded on Christian principles in their rulings.

Whom? I know Chief justice John Jay did. But his statement to that effect was made in dictum, which is basically his opinion but carries no legal weight or authority. I suspect any other Justices who have made similar remarks was also mere personal opinion.

See my reply above to NoWhereMan. It's only a couple of comments up at the moment. Also, when the SCOTUS writes the opinions, they bear the weight of the SCOTUS behind them and are used as precedents to decide other cases:

When it comes to judicial opinions, the reasons for the Court's decision are just as important as the decision itself. This is because the majority opinions issued by the Supreme Court establish precedents, which other courts must follow. The decision of the majority is binding on lower courts.

Forgot to cite my source for the quote.

And at least two SCOTUS judges have affirmed that we are founded on Christian principles in their rulings.

Which 2 justices were they and what were the cases in question?

Which 2 justices were they and what were the cases in question?

I'll bet any such proclamations were in dicta,  and not legally valid or enforceable.

To be clear, there have been numerous secular wars: Russian Civil War, Soviet-Stalin War, Second World War, Chinese Civil War, People Republic of China Civil War (Mao Zedong), Tibet War, Congo Free State. Mexico war, Turkish Massacre of Armenians, China War 1917 - 1928, Korean War, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Balkan Wars, Congo, Rwanda, and many, many more. (credit: David Berlinkski)

With and apart from knowing God, man(kind) knows war! Perfectly consistent with statement attributed to Jesus Christ:

Matthew 24: 6 “You will be hearing of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not frightened, for those things must take place, but that is not yet the end. 7 “For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom, . . . .

WOW! Interesting convo to say the least....

Lots new faces.....

Diversity of opinion is good......

Some know my opinions on this some do not....

Gordy has it right, this is NOT a christian nation. FACT.

Livefreeordie also has it right, this nation was created on the moral basis of those that created it as the creator guided them.

Legally it is not morally it is.

AS a group it is not, As individuals free to believe as they see fit it is.

Most of the founders whether they actually signed the documents or not were christian believers true, what principles guided them to become the great leaders they were (some of them at least) came from their moral upbringing which for most was a religious upbringing. Their own individual beliefs on how man SHOULD conduct himself.

Jefferson also wrote extensively about religion and that all true religions were an organized system of morality taught to bring discipline to the normally unruly spirit that all men are imbued with from birth.

This fits directly into Enlightenment belief. and the crafters of our documents of being were all enlightenment ideals aware.

The system we have places the strongest ideals into we are all free to choose, governments are instituted by men to organize masses, and are not against gods will.

Religions are also a system of instruction on what man should do.

Governments are a system of rules on what man MUST do. (agreed by everyone)

Our system is crafted to make the second easier by chosen application of the first. What ever you decide to call your chosen system of morality is fine and wonderful and our system of government specifically makes that plain. EVERYONE has a choice.

Religions and the religious survive by believing that they and their system are the one true way. All others are rejected as unfit, unworthy, not worth it.....

The antithesis to enlightenment ideals. There is no one true way.

Our founders understood this implicitly, and it's the central theme of my brand of Christianity.

Morality is not based upon rules.

And if I remember right my creator sent his son down to permanently disabuse us of such thoughts.

Our founders talked at length about the men picked to run this governmental creation of theirs must be men of the highest integrity and moral capacity. otherwise it would fail of the avarice's of the constituencies picking the men running it..

Prophetic I would say....

Religion is individual, Government is collective, neither owes allegiance to the other. But both MUST work to support each other.

Otherwise we all fail...

this nation was created on the moral basis of those that created it as the creator guided them.

Not quite. It was created on the basis of the enlightenment principles and English Common Law. If you look at the lives of some of the Founders, they didn't live entirely "moral" lives.

Legally it is not morally it is.

That is quite a distinction. Morality is subjective.

As individuals free to believe as they see fit it is.

This is true.

Religions and the religious survive by believing that they and their system are the one true way. All others are rejected as unfit, unworthy, not worth it.....

Which is one reason why there is strife between many religions and their adherents.

Most of the founders whether they actually signed the documents or not were christian believers true,

The professed religious beliefs of the founding fathers isn't news and no one has ever said they didn't have anything to do with religion. But some people are missing the point if they think it supports the contention that this nation is built on Christian (or religious) principles.  It actually proves the opposite point more effectively...if they were so religious...why didn't they put one single word of their religious beliefs in the founding documents? The single most important document they would ever draft...it took over 40 people over four months to do it...and not one single mention of their most cherished beliefs? It couldn't have been a mere oversight...it must have been deliberate. It proves that they deliberately chose to make this country secular.

Religion is individual, Government is collective, neither owes allegiance to the other. But both MUST work to support each other

Both must be separate to better maintain the integrity of both. The Founding Fathers understood this quite well.

Agreed, we say the same things but say it differently.....

Agreed, we say the same things but say it differently.....

I'm glad we're on the same page.

We are on opposite sides of this issue but welcome back NWM.

Just popping in One, good to see you also.....

I think we agree more than you think....

I suspect any disagreement between us is limited to fine points but I always welcome your thoughts.

But YOU have it wrong:

Gordy has it right, this is NOT a christian nation. FACT.

is NOT the premise of this article.

The premise of this article is the title that: America Was Not Founded on Christian Principles.

The FACT is, it was.  America is NOT a Christian nation, but it was founded upon Christian and other good principles.  Your entire premise is wrong, thus you comments are not relevant.

I have it wrong?

By saying that you reveal your biases more effectively than anyone else ever could.

But then this is a board where people respond more in passion than any real logical sense.

Re-read what I said, you will see that I agree with Gordy more than disagree.

AND; welcome to the board.

One of these days we may have a conversation on the founders without the emotional passions.

Looking forward to it.

That's nice, in your opinion I'm wrong, therefore my comments are irrelevant and should be ignored.

Nice way to declare yourself right and place your belief over everyone else's.

Well, well, well.....if it isn't NWM.   I wish I wasn't happy to see your post but I am.  You've crossed my mind a time or two.  Hope you are well.

The FACT is, it was.

No, it was not! A cursory glance at the Constitution and the works of the founding fathers, with respect to this nation's founding as I cited, makes that abundantly clear.

America is NOT a Christian nation,

This is correct. I'm tempted to post an article addressing that too. Although, it might appear similar to this one.

but it was founded upon Christian and other good principles.  

Good principles, sure. Christian, no.

I love how whenever principles are good and virtuous, Christians claim them for themselves.  Christians have gotten very adept at usurping anything popular and claiming it for their own.  They act like the Golden Rule was initiated through scripture, and they steal pagan holidays - even if it means setting a birthday celebration months away from when they claim the real birthday is.  Godforbid a virtuous principle be shared by nonbelievewrs or those of other faiths.

Godforbid a virtuous principle be shared by nonbelievewrs or those of other faiths.

I've actually  heard Christians say nonbelievers are incapable of being virtuous or moral and other faiths (especially the non-Jesus following ones) are wrong.

I've heard Christians say that if it wasn't for their religion, they would be gambling, viewing porn, stealing, drinking and drugging, possibly raping and killing others.  I say those are the kinds of people you should keep your eye on, no matter how religious they claim to be.

I've heard Christians say that if it wasn't for their religion, they would be gambling, viewing porn, stealing, drinking and drugging, possibly raping and killing others. 

That says volumes about their character as individuals.

I say those are the kinds of people you should keep your eye on, no matter how religious they claim to be.

Indeed.

I don't believe in organized religion of any denomination, nor follow their various teachings. However, that does not mean I am a pagan savage. I follow the ancient Cherokee religion of my Ancestors. 

I believe that a human being can be virtuous and moral, and treat their fellow human beings, and Mother Earth and all that dwells upon the earth, with respect and dignity without regard to the teachings of Christianity or any other organized religion, and they should not be judged by their choice religious affiliation. 

I believe that America was founded on a basic concept of human rights and dignity, not just a specific religious belief. 

Just my opinion.

Raven, that's probably the best post here.

Awesome. 

This is actually my view too. Our nation, even in the case of slavery, even in the case of state or federal control, even in the Washingtonian era of one or two party system, religion or irreligion—have always been  found to have people on both sides of the issue. Always willing to fight for the larger share of the issues.

So yes, the government sought to maintain neutrality of government, but specifically the Christians persisted in attempting to steer the states and by extension the federal government. >>>

Thomas Jefferson is a case in point. This man was a demonstration of a man who wanted secular government, but who thought every bit of holding up Christianity by making bold strives at creating, "The Jefferson Bible." Talk about mixed signals.

It seems that America is a backdrop of many loosely homogenized and not so blended programs, ideas, policies, traditions, and cultural expressions.

Thomas Jefferson is a case in point. This man was a demonstration of a man who wanted secular government, but who thought every bit of holding up Christianity by making bold strives at creating, "The Jefferson Bible." Talk about mixed signals.

Thomas Jefferson was not a Christian. He detested the Christian religion and organized religion in general.  If you have ever read the Jeffersonian Bible, he removed all traces of the miracles and any hint at Jesus being the son of god. 

Nowhere Man ,

I don't think anyone is going to solve this disagreement on this thread. 

I don't think anyone is going to solve this disagreement on this thread. 

Well, I don't believe in miracles. So the "argument" rages on. LOL

Well Gordy, I could lay the proofs out there in the founders own words to prove the assertion that there is no connection to religious theory of conviction to the creation of this nation.

But I doubt that would change anyone's personal beliefs of divine inspiration or interpretation.

Go right ahead NW-M. I'm certainly interested. If anything, it will just drive the point home.

John,

I don't think anyone is going to solve this disagreement on this thread. 

True... but it's maybe the best conversation I've seen on NT in five years...

Well, the nation was certainly founded on the principles of the ten comandments.  But then again, all nations were founded on the common sense of the ten commandments.

Yes the laws of tis nation are indirectly based upon the Commandments, through this nations laws being based upon English Common Law. Kind of an inherited standard if you understand the actual history.

The foundation of this nation is the Enlightenment or as some put it the age of enlightenment, the same one that brought about the Magna Carta, the English Declaration of Rights and the Virginia Declaration of Rights. (which TJ wrote also)

The nation is founded upon the ideal of individual rights and that the law (ten commandments) establishes and supports those rights through the ideal that everyone gets a choice. And if you think about it Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism in which mans rights to choice of belief are not dictated by the holy laws.

This nation was founded upon the choice of the governed to be governed. Government by consent of the governed.

The only similarity to the christian religion is in Christianity the believers have the choice to believe of not. If we do not have that choice, then God has made an imperfect being since he gave us free will.

Such thing being true, then Samael would have been correct and God would have had to destroy us and start all over again. Instead, God sent his son down to earth to live as a Human in the flesh to prove that man could do it. and to forgive us for choosing not to. God created us this way, we can't help it.

WE all have the right to choose, Jesus perfected this right under the law through his sacrifice. The enlightenment established this as the predominant christian belief. 

The Founders, by extension, established a nation where we have the same right to choose applied how we will be governed.

WE were founded upon enlightenment principles, not christian principles.

We are a people that have been 'warring' for the high stack and historical record from our mutually-shared beginning. For instance, in the two continental conferences which provided us our constitution, the slavers jockeyed for keeping slaves and the freedom-lovers wanted freedom (of course). Who won? We know the slave states won, because they would not sign onto joining the proposed union until they had assurance they could keep their slaves.

But, the freedom lovers were surely present at the beginning of the nation—arguing their case. Eventually, winning their "proposal' after the Civil War killed many, many early patriots. This is  America—every view has a 'record' here.

The problem is Cal, the dominate tend to put their spin onto the actual history, then pass it on as fact, when it hardly is....

Indeed!

Your demonstrably false and standard christian apologetic statement aside, which commandments would those be? I see 10 Bill of Rights in the Constitution.  But oddly enough, no 10 commandments in there. Perhaps you can point out where the commandments are enumerated in the Constitution? 

Which commandment protects children from abusive parents?  Was that concept too unimportant to merit chiseling into stone?  

I think that's an anachronism, Hal. Three thousand years ago, little kids were closer to "parents' property" than "people with rights".

Which is one fine reason to quit treating the wisdom of ancient goat herders as being socially relevant today.

When you force wisdom men into the trashbin of time, do so with Plato, Aristotle, Buddha, Confucius, and Socrates as well. It will show you are unbiased and not pushing an agenda against wise men (and women) of ancient times. That's my opinion.

An age old question that will never be decided by civil discourse.

Why? Because both sides use fundamentally different connotations of the words rational and irrational.

Which side gets to define Christian principles? Which parts of the bible shall be used and which shall not?

The question also forgets about those who had inhabited this land long before the first European arrived and were not granted citizenship until 1924. 

Which side gets to define Christian principles?

It's mostly Christians that claim the US is founded on Christian principles. So I'd say they should define exactly what those principles are. Especially how they do not conflict with the Constitution or the intentions of the Founding Fathers themselves.

Which parts of the bible shall be used and which shall not?

It seems to be mainly Christians that tend to cherry-pick the bible to use what suites their position or agenda.

The title of this article is:

America Was NOT Founded On Christian Principles

However, arguments have been mostly about the fact that America is Not a Christian Country.

Unfortunatly the premise of, "America is NOT a Christian Country" is NOT the title of the article.

Therefore, any and all comments that propose, support, defend or even address the argument that "America is NOT a Christian Country" are basically OFF TOPIC and by the rules of this site, should probably be deleted because they are OFF TOPIC.

Focusng ONLY on the article title:

America Was NOT Founded On Christian Principles

That is a false statement because as others have pointed out, this country as well as many others were founded on the principles of the Ten Commandments, which are IN FACT Christian Principles.  They might be principles of a sort of other religions, but as the Ten Commandments they are most definitely recorded in The Christian Bible and thus they are undisputedly Christian Principles.

That fact alone makes the article's premise false.

Furthermore, this country was "Founded" on other Christian principles because all the Founding Fathers were Christian oriented believers in a God, even Thomas Jefferson who crafted the famous Jefferson Bible.

Furthermore, besides Christian Principles this country was also founded upon a blend of other principles which include at least Greek Democracy, Roman Republicanism, and English Common Law, as well as many other aspects of good participatory government throughout the world and throughout history, because The Founders were all highly educated and learned men dedicated to the principle of creating a new form of government that would derive its power from the consent of the governed.

Furthermore, this country was most definitely NOT founded upon the principles of English government.  Not at all, because at that time England was still ruled in most part by a Monarchy, and The Founding Fathers of America totally rejected the English Monarchy.

As far as the Treaty with Tripoli goes, there are two interesting points.  One made by Citizen Kane that the treaty itself was for the purpose of negotiating the release of captured Americans from Tripoli Pirates, by insuring that the treaty was between two secular nations and not two religious entities.  And two, it is interesting to note that very early in the creation of this nation it was necessary to deal with Muslims to insure American nationalism and survival.  Now, at the possible twilight ending of this nation, it is again negotiating with Muslim nations and leaders.  Only this time America has a leader who seems to believe this is a case of Christians versus Muslims.  Ironic, isn't it?

The End.

That is a false statement because as others have pointed out, this country as well as many others were founded on the principles of the Ten Commandments, which are IN FACT Christian Principles

No, this country was not, nor it's principles, IN FACT founded upon the ten commandants.

WE were founded upon enlightenment principles, not christian principles.

Exactly.

The End.

Hardly, you can state your beliefs all you want as you repeatedly have.

Doesn't make it fact for anyone.

Question: is this simply a diatribe of yours or can you actually prove your assertions with facts?

Cause yes you must or risk having your diatribe declared to be actually the worthless diatribe it seems to be.

Your new here so we are taking it easy on you.

Unless you start providing proof.

Of which you haven't yet in fact everyone on your side hasn't provided one iota of proof yet. lotsa claims, no facts.

There are those of us here who are giving all of you the opportunity to prove your claims or defend your statements on this subject.

But it is difficult to allow the inanity to continue....

ALL OF YOU;

PROVE YOUR CLAIMS WITH SOMETHING OTHER THAN YOUR OR OTHERS PERSONAL OPINIONS...

Good luck with that...

Are you afraid to?

Squirrel makes good points but I think saying that the country was literally founded on the Ten Commandments is a bit of a stretch. On the other hand, I think those who take an opposite view to his place too much emphasis on the individual views of the men who represented the thirteen colonies and not enough emphasis on the views of the Christian colonies they represented. 

The founding fathers were all educated men who were familiar, as NWM says, with the enlightenment movement. I remember author Will Durant referring to this as an age of reason that he contrasted in a separate book to an age of faith. Colonial America, however, was composed of strong religious elements who escaped religious persecution in England so they could worship freely here. Most colonies had official state religions so religion was a good deal more important to colonial society than it is in modern day America. When common people (as opposed to enlightenment intellectuals) spoke of God, the Lord, Divine Providence, and The Creator, they were referring (in every reference I have ever seen) exclusively to the Christian God. 

The men who signed the Declaration of Independence signed on behalf of the thirteen colonies they represented, not just on behalf of themselves. Those thirteen colonies represented thirteen sovereign bodies, most of whom were officially Christian and the others officially supported Christianity to some extent. If the nation was composed of Christian colonies, then the nation was Christian. However, each colony favored particular denominations within Christianity. They wanted a secular federal government, not because they favored secularism, but because they didn't want a federal government favoring one denomination over another (which created the persecution in England that they came here to escape).

When the founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, they deftly declared that the laws of nature (as the enlightenment might have phrased it) and the laws of God (as the Christian colonies understood it) are one and the same. But the references after that are to God and the colonials would, and did, understand that their revolt was consistent with the will of God by protecting God-given inalienable rights and that the king of England was acting against the will of God by trying to abridge those rights. The Declaration states to the world the basis for the founding of this country and it says in no uncertain terms that it's based on inalienable rights given by God. 

Welcome to NT, all you refugees from NV... and thank you for one of the best conversations this site has had in a very long time!

Bob, this was a highly repetitive discussion. half the length would have been more than enough. 

True... but there were some very good posts, and aside from one momentary derail/flamewar, the tone remained civil. That's an excellent conversation, in my book!

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, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

ushistory

And so there you have it, "inalienable" and "Supreme Judge" can be clearly seen as pulling double-duty in that both these words conveyed meaning to the Crown and the Church of England, and meaning to the newly detached states which sought to govern themselves apart from their English masters, lords, and high priests.

In our newly born republic system of governance both appeals to God and appeals to nature were appropriate and SERVICEABLE to express what it took to form this nation experience of the religious and secular folks appearing from everywhere on the Earth.

Well I arrived late here, the Post is 2 months old and Firefox is acting up, jumping, flashing etc. So I don't know if my comment will Post.

The Framers/Constitutionals/Founders etc. were majority Christian Believers. NONE of them were as far as I know, atheists, agnostics, anti-christian, Buddhists, Muslims etc. I believe without a doubt therefore, men of Principle and Scruples not Unscrupulous and Unprincipled. I have a Copy of the Constitution and of the 27 Amendments in my PC.

In the Constitution there's at least a quite Clear Christian "Principle" if it can be called that. Is at the very end, just before the Signatures of the Frames, where it read as follows: "done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the 17th Day of September in the Year of our Lord 1787 and of the Independence of the US of A the 12th In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names,..." In order to reduce the length of the quote, I made some changes like where it says "US of A, and 17th and 12th. The rest of the Constitution have some principles that are Godly, Biblical and in place even before Christianity in the Scriptures. So just 'cause they can be disputed as Non-Christian, they're still Scriptural, like those of Liberty and Justice.

Now that Phrase, - "Year of our Lord 1787" - from my POV is indeed a Christian Principle, as Christian as it can be. 'Cause the Lord is Christ and 1787 is an estimate of the yrs. after the birth of Christ. Better yet, there is not much in the Constitution that I can find to be Against the Christian Faith or Against Biblical Teachings. Even if one can't, don't or won't see that short little phrase as "Principle", still as Christ Himself said in: Mark 9:40 for whoever is not against us is for us.

So call it "Principle" or Not, the fact is that those who signed the Constitution knew what they were doing, and I'm sure meant what they meant. Believing or thinking otherwise after more than 200 yrs. is making wild and irresponsible guesses 'bout them, their motive and actions is Cynicism.

Now 'bout the Nation Not being Christian, that's another argument with quite numerous and solid facts in favor of being so. Anyways as John MacArthur has said: "Nations are Not Christian, is the people who are Christians." I'll paraphrase that as; Is the Christians in the Nation who are Christians Not the Nation, the Christians in the Nation don't make the rest of the Nation Christian. It just DOESN'T work like that.

But True Christendom is about God's Grace, Forgiveness and Love in Christ NOT 'bout "Principles", Laws, Rules, Regulations or Values.

NONE of them were as far as I know, atheists, agnostics, anti-christian, Buddhists, Muslims etc. I believe without a doubt therefore, men of Principle and Scruples not Unscrupulous and Unprincipled.

 Are you equating being atheist, agnostic, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. with being unscrupulous or unprincipled?

They used the term "In the Year of Our Lord" because that was the convention of the time.

The Bible would tell us that the Christian god is the only god, and commands us to worship no other.  The First Amendment guarantees our right to worship the Abrahamic god, any and all other gods, our socks, or nothing at all.

Given the History Past, Present and Ongoing of the groups you mentioned the WWW knows well. And that's daily to be heard/seen in the News-media. Without a Doubt they're Unprincipled and Unscrupulous from the top to the bottom.  And it's not getting better.

Your argument/claim of being a "Convention" is absolutely IRRELEVANT given the Fact that as I said they were "Majority Christian believers" that NONE as far as I know were part of those groups, and knew what they were doing when used the Phrase. The phrase was NOT being and is not used by the groups you mentioned.

If you think that the Constitution "Guarantees" your rights, then maybe I can sell you a bridge in Brooklyn, is in an excellent location. And BTW who are the "us" in your "us"?

Calling somebody unprincipled or unscrupulous just because they believe they should worship your god differently from how you do, or because they believe in one less god than you do, is extremely bigoted.

Convention is not irrelevant - we all use the same dating system, whether we're believers or not.

The Constitution is a document I would trust much more quickly than I would an ancient book of uncertain authorship, frequently proven false and in contradiction with itself, written in a time when people weren't sure where the sun went at night.