Our educational system really needs to start doing a better job teaching students about history if this is the perception so many people, even highly intelligent people, are getting. I've seen and heard people claim that the US was originally a "Christian country" and that it was founded on "Christian principles".
The US was founded by a group of people who were predominantly Christians. Most of them were not fundimentalist Christians, most of them believed in a separation of church and state, and many of them had unconventional religious views. Most importantly, though, they intentionally left Christianity out of the government. In fact, they went out of their way to exclude it. Thus, the country was not founded on Christian principles, it was founded on secular principles like universal human rights and balanced government. The fact that it was founded by people who for the most part happened to be Christian is not relevent.
Official documents of the time made references to God fairly frequently. The Declaration of Independence is an example. But the framers of the Constitution conspicuously left out any mention of a higher power. The foundation of our legal system, our government, and our nation's common principles was a document that drew its power from "We the People".
In fact, the Constitution wouldn't have been ratified if it weren't for the promise of a Bill of Rights limiting the powers of the government - the very first clause of which ordered the state not to partake in matters of the church and vice versa. This political necessity shows that the same We the People who founded the nation believed that their state should be independent from Christianity or any other religion.
Even the Declaration of Independence makes no reference to Christianity or the Bible - it merely mentions God. This was a common rhetorical device and certainly gave the words a boosted impact. But coming from Thomas Jefferson, a deist who did not believe Jesus was the son of God, it definitely didn't imply that our independence was justified by Christianity. This aside, the Constitution, as the basis for our actual government, is the more legitimate foundation of any concept of "national principles" anyway.
You mean, they weren't Christians because they weren't fundamentalists.
Many of them were liberal Christians to the point where many modern (and contemporary) Christians would reject them on face for things like not believing the Bible is the word of God.
But my point is that that is irrelevent. Yes, most of them were Christians. But they intentionally founded the country on a purely secular basis.
Many were actually Deists who openly criticized either Christianity, or the church, or both. I have a blog that I posted a week or so ago on this same topic "One Nation Under Many Gods".
I find it funny, Democracy isn't even a Christian concept or idea - but we're supposed to believed it was some how derived from Christian principles?
LOL - Nice blog :)
-------
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
Heh I didn't see that earlier. Nice post yourself. It's interesting how we both started with a reference to the educational system.
Hm.. I wouldn't say we're a nation under many gods, I would say we're a nation under a secular constitution, which accepts individual people who have many gods, but which publicly endorses none. In theory, of course. In practice, unfortunately, that ideal is often ignored.
Thanks for the compliment. I may have used the wrong wording, but what I was trying to convey by using "Many Gods" was essentially that every god is "welcome" here (for lack of a better phrase. Although, I did just also think of the link between pagan beliefs and their many Gods. LOL.
Although, I like your wording much better, as a secular constitution.
-----
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
http://www.progressiveu.org/user/fanaile-drupal-org
So you're going to base this country's principals on the personal beliefs of one man? This country existed well before the Constitution, and the Contitution wouldn't have been ratified if the governmental organization were as screwed up as the Articles of Confederation. To say that this country was founded because of a desire to escape Christianity is also a fallacy. The United States declared its independence because of the oppressive taxation (economic bleeding) by England.
--Mike
The Constitution wasn't written by one man. I only included the discussion of the Declaration of Independence because it's also considered by many to be an important founding document for the country.
This country only existed for a few years before the constitution, and during those years it was based on the now defunct articles and the Declaration of Independence.
I didn't say we rebelled against Britain because of the desire to escape Christianity. But the Constitution is the foundation of our legal system, not the rationale for rebellion. Even if it was, we didn't rebel to institute Christian values, either.
Nothing changes the fact that the framers of the Constitution, the basis of what could be termed our country's collective founding values, intentionally excluded not only Christianity but religion in general.
It's obvious that Christianity influenced the population, and still does. But the country was not "founded" on that influence. It was founded independently of that influence, on the common ground of secularism.
I think a lot of people are turned off by the idea of secular morality or a secular constitution. I remember growing (baptist and catholic -- my parents religions were separate) up with the word "secular" as a negative description. Secular was portrayed as devilish or wrong, both of which have no real basis on the actual definition.
From www.dictionary.com
sec·u·lar ---
adj.
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6. Lasting from century to century.
n.
1. A member of the secular clergy.
2. A layperson.
As you can see, secular does not eqaute to immoral or wrong by any means. It simply means not related to religion or lasting a long time.
But people still make secular things out to be less than...
less good, less humanitarian, less purpose, less meaningful, etc.
With this misinterpretation, most religious people feel that anything based on secular morality can't be half as good as "real" morality from the bible.
In addition, many Christians feel that life without rigid biblical rules and morals that no human could possibly be moral or good. In a way, they feel better than the rest of the secular population. Because without god telling you how to be good how else would we know? Hmmm....
Perhaps, but most people also know that the US is full of all different kinds of religions despite the majority being sects of Christianity, and that society and the law are still functional. They realize that everyone can find their own religious-moral equivilant to the secular laws we have if they really need a religious justification for their behavior. The problem is that they then try to work the other way - develop new laws based on religious justifications or their personal religious beliefs. These people must be made to realize that the country operates at a fundimental level on a legal institution that was entirely secular when it was created and, at least in theory, still is.
Secularism is central to a functioning society because not everyone shares the same religious morals. Even if the idea seems distasteful to some, they have no viable alternative.
There's always individual autonomy/anarchism.
--Mike
I know you were probably being facetious but I'll respond anyway:
I don't believe such a system is possible. Two big forces acting in large groups of people are government and society. Under the current system, they keep each other in check to some extent. Without government, though, social pressures would be far more extreme. Vigilante justice ensures far fewer individual rights to the defendant than legal justice, despite the legal system's failings. Without the 14th Amendment's influence on the legal system, society would be loath to accept difference, and minorities would be quickly marginalized and probably destroyed. Individualism would die, since anyone with a high profile would be a target for crime.
I think William Golding's Lord of the Flies makes some important statements about the horrors of anarchy as well as the horrors of government power. A compromise is the only way to escape being sucked into the negative utopias on either side of the spectrum.
Well, lucky for you, I wasn't being facetious.
Yes, without government, social pressures would be extreme; however, they wouldn't be bound up in bureaucracy. Vigilante Justice would surely be meted out with societal justice which tends to have quicker execution. The legal system fails in that it is based on a universal morality, which I do not agree with. Individualism wouldn't die, it would just have to heed to society's demands or hire a nice militia. Just because there's no government, doesn't mean that there's no economy.
I actually wrote an essay on Lord of the Flies, countering most of its claims about the natural evils of society (however, justifying the possibility of such a situation, but attributing it to other causes such as geography, economy, and occupation).
--Mike
Let me provide some concrete examples.
Without government, gay people would be lynched, especially in conservative Christian areas.
Iraq is a good example of how religious controversy and other social tensions lead to mass death in the absence of a functioning government. I'd rather have slower justice than justice which is more arbitrary and more frequently violent.
I think your claim about individualism outlines a big part of the problem. Individualism would be lost for those who aren't wealthy or otherwise powerful. "Heeding society's demands" is just another way of saying "giving up individual rights."
It is possible to have a few universal moral principles - such as don't interfere in the private lives of others. The government doesn't always follow this maxim, but an independent society would follow it far less - we can't rely on the good will of everyone to check the urge to modify others' behavior, especially when so many people belong to missionary faiths.
Hmm... maybe we should move this discussion to a separate post. I'll start one in just a second, if you haven't already.
Here it is.
Oh and I'd like to read that essay, if I may. I find that book to be very interesting and enjoy discussing it. Perhaps you could post it on your blog? Let me know if you do.
Done! Here you go. http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-the-destructiveness-of-man-an-essay-on-lord-of-the-flies Critique away!
--Mike
Historical revision... Read up on the dominionist (or dominionism) movement and its penchant for revisionist history.
The argument that this country was founded on Christian principles mainly stems from the Puritans that came over on the Mayflower, an event that is significant, but I feel it is often overplayed and the practitioners of the uber-conservative sect held up as heroes just because they settled in what is now America.
Many (if not most) of the "Founding Fathers" were in fact deists, believing in, at best, a "Watchmaker God." In fact, some believed that in coming generations people would look upon Christianity just as we look at Greek gods and goddesses today; as myths and nothing more. Jefferson even came up with his own version of the New Testament, cutting out essentially all the references to Christ's divinity. I forget where I saw the figures as well, but if I remember correctly a study done on the faith of many Americans at the time of the revolution showed that Christianity was not the overwhelming faith.
The idea that this country was founded on God and needs to be "reclaimed for Christ" is ridiculous. Yes, many of our laws are based on the Judeo-Christian mandates in the 10-commandments, but God is not a necessary component of morality. For any society to function properly (i.e. not have everyone kill each other) there needs to be a social and moral obligation to not steal, murder, rape, have affairs, etc. If someone took your stuff and slept with your wife and there was nothing telling you it's not ok to kill the person who robbed you of so much, I think the murder rate would be much higher. But I digress. The point is in Europe the church and the government were bedfellows for far too long, causing many deaths and the subjugation of people (i.e. The Spanish Inquisition). What the founders of this country desired was freedom for all people from persecution, including religious freedom, so those wishing to make America a Theocracy are actually acting contrary to the wishes of this country's founders.
Isn't faith suppossed to be invitation, after all? Isn't the point of religion to willingfully believe and act through that faith, rather than be told what you must believe? Oddly enough, in a recent survey it seemed more people would elect a homosexual president over an atheist one (assuming the hypothetical homosexual wasn't an atheist), showing this preconceived (and often wrong) notion that a religious person is automatically moral and just. There is this idea that faith is a pre-requisite for all good deeds, and although there are some good deeds done out of faith, there are also many atrocities on various levels. I'm not about to say all faith is bad, but it maddens me to keep seeing this idea that if you're a Christian in America, you can do no wrong because you talk to God and can carry out His will, so anyone can automatically call up God's authority to back them up, no matter how foolish their position may be. If God is for us, who can be against us?
Anyway, you're right in that the founding fathers didn't wish this nation to be an exclusively Christian one, although they did not seem to be Christians themselves. You're also correct that history classes need to do a better job at telling the truth of our history, and not just concoct some fantasy that makes everyone feel good and patriotic. It's just another sign of our failing education system and how ignorance is being used to back up fundamentalism in this country.
"In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending Providence in our favor... And have we now forgotten this powerful Friend? Or do we no longer need His assistance?
"I have lived, Sir, a very long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: 'that God governs the affairs of man.' And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?
"We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel; we shall be divided by our little, partial local interests; our projects will be confounded; and we ourselves shall become a reproach and a byword down to the future ages. And, what is worse, mankind may hereafter, from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war, or conquest.
"I therefore beg leave to move that, henceforth, prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberation be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business."
Thanks for the quote. It seems to lack any sort of accompanying argument. Franklin is respected but that doesn't mean everything he said is to be accepted on face.
I have seen much proof that most of the founding fathers were Christians and did believe in Christ as the son of God, mainly by documents of their own words.
Do you have any evidence to say otherwise?
Also if they were Christians don't you think that affected the choices they made and how they balanced their lives?
The majority of the founding fathers were Deists and many of them spoke out against the church rather openly.
Those who were Christian recognized the past failures of basing a nation upon religious principles and so looked for inspiration of Pagan and/or pre-Christian nations - such as Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece.
Democracy, for example, is not a Christian principle; neither is a Constitutional Republic (our current form of government). They were vehemently against setting up a strong central bank, a central church, and a strong central body of government that left too much power in the hands of too few people.
Thomas Jefferson did question the separation of church and state in a letter, which was natural considering that since the birth of the Church, such a system had never been implemented successfully. But the founding fathers felt comfortable that a complete and total separation of church and state was the only way for this nation to survive;
It's too bad we proved during the 1950s that we couldn't handle such a separation as well as they had and decided to add phrases to our money and pledge that they fought so hard to keep out.
http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-one-nation-under-all-gods
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dream as though you'll live forever, but live as though there's no tomorrow" --James Dean
Fanaile Essence,
A-Team Member
Nominate your Favorite Blog to become a Featured Blogger!
Also if they were Christians don't you think that affected the choices they made and how they balanced their lives?
What are you implying? That non-Christians don't make the proper choices? Whether they were Christian or not, don't you think the success of our government (still quite young) is proof that they made mostly the right decisions?
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
"Do you have any evidence to say otherwise."
An excellent source is, The Age of Reason by Thomas Paine.
HOW does that make this country founded on "Christian principles"? Just because the views expressed in the Constitution belonged to Christians does not mean that the Constitution is inherently Christian. It doesn't even mention god.
~Violinstef
I was going to reply to this, but then I figured that my reply would be longer than the actual post, so I just created a new blog,
http://www.progressiveu.org/122242-the-founding-fathers-had-a-strong-chr...
so essentially that blog is my reply to this one.
I love how you leave out the fact that 38% of the Constitution can be sourced directly to the Bible, that 70% of the rest can be sourced to Christian leaders at the time, that the Pledge of Allegiance says "one nation, UNDER GOD." That George Washington, first president, stated quite clearly that only "the hand of providence [God], is responsible..." and that the majority of them were, contrary to your belief, very faithful prayers and Bible readers. Get your head out of the sand and actually do something we call researching.
Why don't you do some research yourself? The words "under God" were added to the Pledge in the 1950's as an insult to the atheist Soviet Union. The rest of the info that you claim is not sourced and, frankly, most of the Western World was overtly Christian at the time, so all leaders would have been Christian. i would also like to point out that Thomas Jefferson once said, "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man," just for ha-has.
~Violinstef
Actually, if you would look at the way Leviticus draws out the government of Israel, the first thing you would think of is a three branched government, with two sets of representatives for each tribe, the levites set over the Judicial branch, with a general over the army and two leaders (Moses and Aaron at the beginning, then Joseph and Caleb) over the whole setup. Is ANY of this sounding familiar? I like to think that, aside from the Levites over the Judicial system part, it sounds like the way America is set up. I may be kidding myself, but hey, the similarities are uncanny.
1. You quote one of 2 signers of the Constitution who were deists and make a blanket statement about the rest.
2. I can cite the percentages of sources mentioned at the beginning to a ten year research project undertaken by the Smithsonian institute, the George Washington comment to his own quotes. In fact, here's another:
"It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible"? (September 17, 1796)
and another: "For God and my Country." (quoted by his own daughter: Woodlawn, 26 February, 1833.)
In the same letter, his daughter also wrote:
"General Washington had a pew in Pohick Church, and one in Christ Church at Alexandria. He was very instrumental in establishing Pohick Church, and I believe subscribed largely. His pew was near the pulpit. I have a perfect recollection of being there, before his election to the presidency, with him and my grandmother...He attended the church at Alexandria, when the weather and roads permitted a ride of ten miles. In New York and Philadelphia he never omitted attendance at church in the morning, unless detained by indisposition...No one in church attended to the services with more reverential respect...I should have thought it the greatest heresy to doubt his firm belief in Christianity. His life, his writings, prove that he was a Christian. He was not one of those who act or pray, 'that they may be seen of men.' He communed with his God in secret...Is it necessary that any one should certify, 'General Washington avowed himself to me a believer in Christianity?' As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic, disinterested devotion to his country. His mottos were, 'Deeds, not Words'; and, 'For God and my Country.'"
Now, why don't you tell his family that they were wrong. You could as well say a Zebra is stripe-less as say that George Washington was not a Christian.
Do you need any more education, or will this be a place where actual evidence overrules your own opinion?