A Christian Nation

[gallo]

It seems to me that if the founding fathers of this country were very bright, and I think that they were, then their intentions to form a "Christian Nation," or at least a nation founded on "Christian principles," would be clearly evident in our founding documents. I mean, aside from their private writings where no indication of such intent can be found, wouldn't such intent be clear in the very documents that declared and established this country? With that in mind, I have examined some of the early documents written by these founding fathers upon which this nation was founded searching for these "Christian principles" to which "Christian Nation" advocates wish to return.

First, there is the Declaration of Independence. While the view of the founding fathers was that the Declaration did not found a new nation, but rather returned the power to govern to the source, i.e., the people, this document is often cited as evidence of a "Christian Nation" by advocates of a repressive theocracy. The Declaration of Independence left the 13 Colonies without a legislative body and without law. As the founding fathers expressed at the time, the people were returned to the state of nature.

Second, I have examined the eleven constitutions, written concurrently with or immediately after the Declaration in 1776 and 1777, which re-established governments in ten of the newly independent states, and also established the independent Republic of Vermont from the disputed territories that were claimed by Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and New York. Three colonies (Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut) didn't draft and adopt constitutions until later and instead reverted to a previous charter.

Third, I examined the Articles of Confederation, the initial founding document of The United States of America, The Constitution itself, and the Bill of Rights.

So here are some questions about these documents. Keep in mind that the intent of the founding fathers to form a "Christian Nation" should be quite clear in these documents, if that were their intent. Even if their intent were less than a "Christian Nation" but was only to found a nation on "Christian principles," I think that that too should be clearly evident.

These remarks are from the introduction to the test. Page down once to bypass.

So follow this link to The Christian Nation Quiz and test your ideas, and maybe learn something in the process.

Any discussion or comment appreciated.

[gallo]

I am amazed! Apparently there are no "Christian Nation" advocates here. I never would have thought that. Even more amazing, the idea is such a non-issue that no one even learned anything significant enough to make a comment. Strange. I've been engaged in "Christian Nation" discussions with so many people over many, many years that I am stunned. Recently there were discussions on this topic when Judge Roy Moore placed his monumental erection of the 10 Commandments in the rotunda of the Supreme Court of Alabama. I argued against more "Christian Nation" babble locally when a Bible display was removed from in front of the Harris County Court House in Houston, Texas.

Thanks for your input.

[Century 25]

lol... christian nation.. gag me with a bible..

[Technosoul]

I do not think it was founded as a Christian Nation. But if you believe the intent was to turn the rulership back to we the people, it would seem that the real intent was not to turn it over to "we the animals living in the wild". Surely they intended more then what Darwin would discribe for animal survival.

But lets us say it was not founded as a Christian Nation. Let us say that the "we those people" got mostly converted over a number of years to believe in the morality advocated by the mainstream Christian churches. Then what?
Did we the people make it into a Christian Nation as time passed by making religious will the majority will of our communities in every state? It is still run by we the people but what if we the people became mostly (majority) Christans, then the founding ideas would hold true, that people have the right to become a Christian Nation if such is the will of the majority? At least relative to standards of morality? Interesting thing is that Playboy has freedom of speech as an consitutional protection in this new nation of Christian morality... but not freedom of speech relative to those under the age of .... what? 18? Why?

The founders set a loose program, become what you want to become by the will of the people (more or less). Now that we have "become" it, what are we?
Because I did not see you present any proof that it was the intent of the founding forefathers to make this a Seuclar Nation ether, or how about that angle?

Hmm? A melting pot of diveristy? Or a united nation with some minorities within it that we "allow" to have certain freedoms because there is no real law by majority or by minority, save for the Supreme Court.

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul I do not think it was founded as a Christian Nation.

Good. Another fundamentalist won over.

Quote by: Technosoul But if you believe the intent was to turn the rulership back to we the people, it would seem that the real intent was not to turn it over to "we the animals living in the wild". Surely they intended more then what Darwin would discribe for animal survival.

What are you talking about? The reason that every one of the colonies wrote or adopted a previous constitution (government) after July 4, 1776 was that the power to govern had been returned to the people. I didn't mention "rulership", animals, the wild, or Darwin. Try to concentrate and stick to the topic.

Quote by: Technosoul But lets us say it was not founded as a Christian Nation.

OK. It was not founded as a Christian Nation. Did you miss the point?

Quote by: Technosoul Let us say that the "we those people" got mostly converted over a number of years to believe in the morality advocated by the mainstream Christian churches. Then what?

Then they will try to replace the freedoms of our Constitution with a misguided morality. Then christian prayer will be imposed on everyone. Then religious taboos will become law, more than they have already.

Quote by: Technosoul Did we the people make it into a Christian Nation as time passed by making religious will the majority will of our communities in every state?

To some extent, in some states more than others. Even now we are battling against christian prayer in public schools and christian monuments paid for and erected on public land.

Quote by: Technosoul It is still run by we the people but what if we the people became mostly (majority) Christans, then the founding ideas would hold true, that people have the right to become a Christian Nation if such is the will of the majority?

Right. Based on the idea that a people has the right to overthrow the government and form a new government with the intention to deny anyone who does not conform their rights.

Quote by: Technosoul At least relative to standards of morality?

But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the fact that our government, as formed, is not a Christian nation. The question of overthrowing the government in order to form a new government based on christian theocracy was not part of the question.

Quote by: Technosoul Interesting thing is that Playboy has freedom of speech as an consitutional protection in this new nation of Christian morality... but not freedom of speech relative to those under the age of .... what? 18? Why?

Yet again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Did that actually make sense? In fact we don't have a "new nation of Christian morality." We still have the same secular - "Godless" as it was called by Christians at the time - Constitution that grants equal rights to all.

Quote by: Technosoul The founders set a loose program, become what you want to become by the will of the people (more or less). Now that we have "become" it, what are we?

Did that make sense to you?

Quote by: Technosoul Because I did not see you present any proof that it was the intent of the founding forefathers to make this a Seuclar Nation ether, or how about that angle?

Do you actually know the meaning of the words you are using?

Quote by: Technosoul Hmm? A melting pot of diveristy?

Is that meaningful?

Quote by: Technosoul Or a united nation with some minorities within it that we "allow" to have certain freedoms because there is no real law by majority or by minority, save for the Supreme Court.

Have you ever taken a course in government, even in high school? I thought not.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo Good. Another fundamentalist won over. What are you talking about? The reason that every one of the colonies wrote or adopted a previous constitution (government) after July 4, 1776 was that the power to govern had been returned to the people. I didn't mention "rulership", animals, the wild, or Darwin. Try to concentrate and stick to the topic. OK. It was not founded as a Christian Nation. Did you miss the point? Then they will try to replace the freedoms of our Constitution with a misguided morality. Then christian prayer will be imposed on everyone. Then religious taboos will become law, more than they have already. To some extent, in some states more than others. Even now we are battling against christian prayer in public schools and christian monuments paid for and erected on public land. Right. Based on the idea that a people has the right to overthrow the government and form a new government with the intention to deny anyone who does not conform their rights. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the fact that our government, as formed, is not a Christian nation. The question of overthrowing the government in order to form a new government based on christian theocracy was not part of the question. Yet again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Did that actually make sense? In fact we don't have a "new nation of Christian morality." We still have the same secular - "Godless" as it was called by Christians at the time - Constitution that grants equal rights to all. Did that make sense to you? Do you actually know the meaning of the words you are using? Is that meaningful? Have you ever taken a course in government, even in high school? I thought not.

I said "if the intent was to return the rulership back to we the people..." Meaning that England ruled at that time and so they intended return that authority back to the people (meaning people would govern their self), re: voting and whatnot. But not by the law of the jungle (as in nature) but by standards of a civilized community which standards can be linked back to religious concepts. However you mentioned the right of people to govern within their own boarderlines and that idea is fast becoming obsolete as indicated in the following link...

http://www.conservationcommons.org/m...ocu-7e8akm.pdf

If the nation is mostly of the Christian faith then they are not "they" but are "we the people" who govern we the people. As intended. The conflict is that the people who govern the people must determine if we wish to be govern by our forefathers or by our self? Not by our individual self but meaning by the current population of peoples. Government from the grave or government by those living in the USA here and now? Now in a Christian home the governing parents might make sure the kids say their nightly prayers at bedtime. The Presidents call that "family values". What then do we as a nation value the most, God or secular belief, go ahead and take an naitonal poll and see what happens. Betcha' the answer for the majority of we the people is "God". And we is not me, persay, but meaning the majority of the people.

Now I personally would rather be free to be a bad boy and do all the little no no's that most religions concider taboo. But if someone or some group is governing my behavor then my freedom is limited by their rules which they wish to vote into exsistence, after all they got the police department to enforce the will of that governing body, no one really effected a state of anarchy where everyone can do as they darn well please. That is self evident.

However the thing about this plan is that if the Christians get too pushy and try to force people to pray in public schools and so forth then the next generation would rise as the next majority and they would change it all back to where it was before, out of rebellion, or to something different. So we would move from a sheepe nation to a hippy nation to a Christian nation to a nation of materialism, or whatever. At some points on that historical graft your personal freedoms are expanded and at other points more restricted, based on so-called "community values" and/or "national values". A system of flexabilty that reflects the influences of the times.

I did not say anything about an armed revolution being conducted by Christians to overpower the current consitutional government - how can you overthrow we the people who govern our selves? You can only attack and overthrow a rulership that is acting independantly from the will of the majority of the citizens.

I have agreed with you that the we were not founded as a Christian Nation, meaning we do not and did not have a Pope of the Chruch dictating things from his throne. Nor anything like that at all. We were not and are not a chruch ruled nation. And such would be impossible because we got too many different Christian churches and they do not agree with each other on many issues. But the majority of the people belong to one of those many different Christian dedominatons and they all claim the title "Christian".

However we in fact are not a free nation with the right to govern our self because the Supreme Court was put in charge to make sure we are ruled by the Consitution according to the will and the intent of those who wrote it. And so far the Supreme Court is made up of legal types rather then biblical fundamentalists. So for the time being you are safe. (somewhat?).
Plus a lot of lesser courts which settle most of the conflicts about "rights".

I will not address the parts where you stated you cannot comprehend what I said, As you sort of run out of steam at the end of your rebuttle. Yes, it makes sense even if your do not have the talent to grasp the meaning,.

Hmm? Does God have equal rights with the rest of us? Never mind answering that one.... a trick question to be avoided.

Now you stated that the USA was not founded as a Christian Nation, then how come the majority are the people are Christians and how can that not help but effect the laws that govern our society? Must the Supreme Court ban the law "do not kill someone without just cause" because Moses said it in the Bible? Must we ban every law that might reflect some standard of morality mentioned in a religious scripture? What are you trying to say anyway?

Hey, we were not founded as a Mexican-American Nation ether but "times they are a-changing". Who knows they might force everyone to eat tacos.

Better luck next time.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: gallo Good. Another fundamentalist won over. What are you talking about? The reason that every one of the colonies wrote or adopted a previous constitution (government) after July 4, 1776 was that the power to govern had been returned to the people. I didn't mention "rulership", animals, the wild, or Darwin. Try to concentrate and stick to the topic. OK. It was not founded as a Christian Nation. Did you miss the point? Then they will try to replace the freedoms of our Constitution with a misguided morality. Then christian prayer will be imposed on everyone. Then religious taboos will become law, more than they have already. To some extent, in some states more than others. Even now we are battling against christian prayer in public schools and christian monuments paid for and erected on public land. Right. Based on the idea that a people has the right to overthrow the government and form a new government with the intention to deny anyone who does not conform their rights. But that's not what this thread is about. This thread is about the fact that our government, as formed, is not a Christian nation. The question of overthrowing the government in order to form a new government based on christian theocracy was not part of the question. Yet again, I have no idea what you are talking about. Did that actually make sense? In fact we don't have a "new nation of Christian morality." We still have the same secular - "Godless" as it was called by Christians at the time - Constitution that grants equal rights to all. Did that make sense to you? Do you actually know the meaning of the words you are using? Is that meaningful? Have you ever taken a course in government, even in high school? I thought not.

I said "if the intent was to return the rulership back to we the people..." Meaning that England ruled at that time and so they intended return that authority back to the people (meaning people would govern their self), re: voting and whatnot. But not by the law of the jungle (as in nature) but by standards of a civilized community which standards can be linked back to religious concepts. However you mentioned the right of people to govern within their own boarderlines and that idea is fast becoming obsolete as indicated in the following link...

http://www.conservationcommons.org/m...ocu-7e8akm.pdf

If the nation is mostly of the Christian faith then they are not "they" but are "we the people" who govern we the people. As intended. The conflict is that the people who govern the people must determine if we wish to be govern by our forefathers or by our self? Not by our individual self but meaning by the current population of peoples. Government from the grave or government by those living in the USA here and now? Now in a Christian home the governing parents might make sure the kids say their nightly prayers at bedtime. The Presidents call that "family values". What then do we as a nation value the most, God or secular belief, go ahead and take an naitonal poll and see what happens. Betcha' the answer for the majority of we the people is "God". And we is not me, persay, but meaning the majority of the people.

Now I personally would rather be free to be a bad boy and do all the little no no's that most religions concider taboo. But if someone or some group is governing my behavor then my freedom is limited by their rules which they wish to vote into exsistence, after all they got the police department to enforce the will of that governing body, no one really effected a state of anarchy where everyone can do as they darn well please. That is self evident.

However the thing about this plan is that if the Christians get too pushy and try to force people to pray in public schools and so forth then the next generation would rise as the next majority and they would change it all back to where it was before, out of rebellion, or to something different. So we would move from a sheepe nation to a hippy nation to a Christian nation to a nation of materialism, or whatever. At some points on that historical graft your personal freedoms are expanded and at other points more restricted, based on so-called "community values" and/or "national values". A system of flexabilty that reflects the influences of the times.

I did not say anything about an armed revolution being conducted by Christians to overpower the current consitutional government - how can you overthrow we the people who govern our selves? You can only attack and overthrow a rulership that is acting independantly from the will of the majority of the citizens.

I have agreed with you that the we were not founded as a Christian Nation, meaning we do not and did not have a Pope of the Chruch dictating things from his throne. Nor anything like that at all. We were not and are not a chruch ruled nation. And such would be impossible because we got too many different Christian churches and they do not agree with each other on many issues. But the majority of the people belong to one of those many different Christian dedominatons and they all claim the title "Christian".

However we in fact are not a free nation with the right to govern our self because the Supreme Court was put in charge to make sure we are ruled by the Consitution according to the will and the intent of those who wrote it. And so far the Supreme Court is made up of legal types rather then biblical fundamentalists. So for the time being you are safe. (somewhat?).
Plus a lot of lesser courts which settle most of the conflicts about "rights".

I will not address the parts where you stated you cannot comprehend what I said, As you sort of run out of steam at the end of your rebuttle. Yes, it makes sense even if your do not have the talent to grasp the meaning,.

Hmm? Does God have equal rights with the rest of us? Never mind answering that one.... a trick question to be avoided.

Now you stated that the USA was not founded as a Christian Nation, then how come the majority of the people are Christians and how can that not help but effect the laws that govern our society? Must the Supreme Court ban the law "do not kill someone without just cause" because Moses said it in the Bible? Must we ban every law that might reflect some standard of morality mentioned in a religious scripture? What are you trying to say anyway?

Hey, we were not founded as a Mexican-American Nation ether but "times they are a-changing". Who knows they might force everyone to eat tacos.

Better luck next time. (PS - I is self educated).

[gallo]

Quote by: Technosoul I said "if the intent was to return the rulership back to we the people..." Meaning that England ruled at that time and so they intended return that authority back to the people (meaning people would govern their self), re: voting and whatnot.

I'm not sure that you actually grasp what was said and what was meant. The idea actually comes from enlightenment philosophers, Locke, and Hume. In their state of nature, government was only legitimate if it had the consent of the people and if it protected natural rights to life, liberty and property. Since the Declaration states that the government of England failed to respect those natural rights, then "...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it." That's what the founding fathers meant when they spoke of a return to a state of nature; the power to govern was returned to their hands.

Quote by: Technosoul But not by the law of the jungle (as in nature) but by standards of a civilized community which standards can be linked back to religious concepts.

My fault for assuming that you actually had any knowledge of the foundations of our government. No one said anything about law of the jungle, whatever that may be. We are talking about the ideas of government according to the philosophers of the enlightenment. The founding fathers had read most of them and many of them were in fact deists and humanists.

Quote by: Technosoul However you mentioned the right of people to govern within their own boarderlines and that idea is fast becoming obsolete

I mentioned no such thing. I talked about the right of the people to govern themselves, and as I have now further explained, the right to abolish any government that does not respect the natural rights of the people.

Quote by: Technosoul If the nation is mostly of the Christian faith then they are not "they" but are "we the people" who govern we the people. As intended.

It has nothing to do with Christian faith, and in fact, as made clear in the Christian Nation quiz, neither the Articles of Confederation nor the Constitution recognized the Christian faith. And of course, it was "We The People of the United States" that altered the form of government from that of the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution.

Quote by: Technosoul The conflict is that the people who govern the people must determine if we wish to be govern by our forefathers or by our self? Not by our individual self but meaning by the current population of peoples.

Since our forefathers are pretty much dead, I think that the question is moot. Are you sure you thought this through before answering?

Quote by: Technosoul Government from the grave or government by those living in the USA here and now?

Perhaps you are unaware that the means to alter the Constitution is written into it. Other than that, I can't actually see much meaning in what you say.

Quote by: Technosoul Now in a Christian home the governing parents might make sure the kids say their nightly prayers at bedtime. The Presidents call that "family values".

I can't even see how that is relevant to a conversation between adults.

Quote by: Technosoul What then do we as a nation value the most, God or secular belief, go ahead and take an naitonal poll and see what happens.

Irrelevant. We have a secular Constitution that guarantees certain rights to citizens no matter what their religion or whether they have any religion at all. If you wish to overthrow the government and establish a Christian theocracy, that is your business.

Quote by: Technosoul Betcha' the answer for the majority of we the people is "God". And we is not me, persay, but meaning the majority of the people.

And we happen to live in a Constitutional republic. The majority doesn't get to enforce relilgion on everyone.

Quote by: Technosoul Now I personally would rather be free to be a bad boy and do all the little no no's that most religions concider taboo.

Drop out of school, did you?

Quote by: Technosoul But if someone or some group is governing my behavor then my freedom is limited by their rules which they wish to vote into exsistence, after all they got the police department to enforce the will of that governing body, no one really effected a state of anarchy where everyone can do as they darn well please. That is self evident.

You have certain rights that the people cannot take away by vote. You don't seem to know much about this country or this government.

Quote by: Technosoul However the thing about this plan is that if the Christians get too pushy and try to force people to pray in public schools and so forth then the next generation would rise as the next majority and they would change it all back to where it was before, out of rebellion, or to something different.

That's what we are trying to do now. You seem to have so little knowledge of history.

Quote by: Technosoul I did not say anything about an armed revolution being conducted by Christians to overpower the current consitutional government - how can you overthrow we the people who govern our selves?

Neither did I. Do you just make this up as you go along?

Quote by: Technosoul You can only attack and overthrow a rulership that is acting independantly from the will of the majority of the citizens.

Not true. But never mind.

Quote by: Technosoul I have agreed with you that the we were not founded as a Christian Nation, meaning we do not and did not have a Pope of the Chruch dictating things from his throne.

But that's not what it means. Where are you getting this.

Quote by: Technosoul Nor anything like that at all. We were not and are not a chruch ruled nation.

You must have missed the question about how many of the 13 original colonies had, at one time or another, a state religion. Tax money was used to support the church and the clergy. Did you not understand that the answer is 12. Even today, England still has a state religion.

Quote by: Technosoul And such would be impossible because we got too many different Christian churches and they do not agree with each other on many issues. But the majority of the people belong to one of those many different Christian dedominatons and they all claim the title "Christian".

That's true. It makes one wonder what kind of a Christian Nation this would be when not even Christians can agree on what it means to be Christian. Mostly it seems to mean that whoever is talking thinks that he should be able to force his religion on everyone.

Quote by: Technosoul However we in fact are not a free nation with the right to govern our self because the Supreme Court was put in charge to make sure we are ruled by the Consitution according to the will and the intent of those who wrote it.

You just don't grasp what our Constitution says and how it functions, do you. We govern because WE have the right to change the Constitution and change our government. Some small minded people even want to put some rather trivial changes in the Constitution.

Quote by: Technosoul And so far the Supreme Court is made up of legal types rather then biblical fundamentalists. So for the time being you are safe. (somewhat?).

Actually, there are several biblical fundamentalists on the Supreme Court. My son, a lawyer was once began telling me about a case that had been decided by the Supreme Court. Without having heard the outcome I predicted that the decision was either 6-3 or 5-4. He said 6-3. I then predicted that the three were Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas. I was right. The case had to do with the imposition of religion by the many on the few.

Quote by: Technosoul Plus a lot of lesser courts which settle most of the conflicts about "rights".

Is that actually attached to some train of thought or is it just a random flash that you threw in.

Quote by: Technosoul I will not address the parts where you stated you cannot comprehend what I said, As you sort of run out of steam at the end of your rebuttle. Yes, it makes sense even if your do not have the talent to grasp the meaning,.

Or you lack the talent to express ideas clearly. Many of your statements are gibberish.

Quote by: Technosoul Now you stated that the USA was not founded as a Christian Nation, then how come the majority of the people are Christians and how can that not help but effect the laws that govern our society?

But "Christian Nation" doesn't mean that lots of the people are Christian. The question was whether the founding fathers meant to found this nation on Christian principles. I guess the point just sailed right by you.

Quote by: Technosoul Must the Supreme Court ban the law "do not kill someone without just cause" because Moses said it in the Bible? Must we ban every law that might reflect some standard of morality mentioned in a religious scripture? What are you trying to say anyway?

Now you are being silly again. Laws against murder do not depend on whether or not it is in the Bible. Do you stone your children to death if they sass you? Would you stone your wife if she wore a dress made from two different fabrics? Says you should in the Bible. I didn't say that the country was founded as anti-christian or anti-bible. I said that it was founded as a secular government, i.e., not founded on the principles of any religion.

Quote by: Technosoul Hey, we were not founded as a Mexican-American Nation ether but "times they are a-changing". Who knows they might force everyone to eat tacos.

Pretty much of a bigot, aren't you?

Quote by: Technosoul Better luck next time. (PS - I is self educated).

You have a funny definition of education.

[Osborn F Enready]

This never was, nor was it intended to be, a Christian nation.

As long as I am alive, and here, you never will be.

[brien]

Actually there were a few colonies which I recall that advocated the nation emerge as a Christain nation but Thomas Jefferson and James Madison won the Constitutional battle and convinced representatives from states like MA to drop the provision. Even though Jefferson actually attended church in the halls of Congress, Jefferson's letter to the Baptists in Danbury Connecticut pretty much puts this argument to bed.

Religion and the Federal Government: PART 2 (Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, Library of Congress Exhibition)

THE STATE BECOMES THE CHURCH: JEFFERSON AND MADISON 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.

However, please consider the following:

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government

And then there is this more recent treatise on the famous letter to the Baptists.

h

ttp://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1058/is_n23_v115/ai_21118339

Jefferson's church-state views debated - Thomas Jefferson; Library of Congress exhibit controversy - Brief Article Christian Century, August 26, 1998 A major Library of Congress exhibit of more than 200 items examining the role of religion in early American life has sparked a new church-state debate even as it winds up its Washington stay and prepares to visit a number of major U.S. cities. On July 30 a group of two dozen church-state scholars released a joint letter criticizing a paper the Library of Congress released June 1 in connection with the exhibit. Titled "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic," the Library's paper portrayed Jefferson's position on church-state separation as political rather than principled. Written by James Hutson, chief of the Library's manuscript division, the paper was based on a high-tech analysis of Jefferson's famed 1802 letter, included in the exhibit, to the Danbury, Connecticut, Baptist Association in which he used the metaphor of a "wall of separation" between church and state. The analysis of the letter was conducted by the FBI, which used its technology to restore words Jefferson had crossed out in drafting the letter. According to Hutson, the omissions suggest that the letter to the Danbury Baptists "was never conceived by Jefferson to be a statement of fundamental principles; it was meant to be a political manifesto, nothing more." Hutson's paper was seized upon by the Christian Coalition to argue that it is "a liberal myth" that Jefferson intended his words "to be used as a justification for expelling religious expression from the public square." But the 24 scholars responding to Hutson's paper maintained that Hutson presented an "unbalanced treatment" of the topic. The scholars said there may be several possible explanations for Jefferson's crossing out of several words, but they do not provide a basis for Hutson's argument.

And check this out as well.

Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church

I have no doubt in all of my studies of Jefferson and Madison that they did not intend this nation to have a national religion.

[gallo]

Quote by: brien Actually there were a few colonies which I recall that advocated the nation emerge as a Christain nation

In fact, I mentioned that 12 of 13 had a state religion at one time. However, the question of a Christian nation was little discussed during the Constitutional Convention.

Quote by: brien but Thomas Jefferson and James Madison won the Constitutional battle and convinced representatives from states like MA to drop the provision.

That is a remarkable claim since Jefferson was in France at the time. I'm not sure why you think that MA was somehow significant. How many delegates to the Constitutional Convention walked out for religious reasons and what states were they from? Have you read Madison's journal of the Convention? Please cite specific passages to support your assertion. It is my understanding that religion was little discussed except in relation to Article VI, even though several delegates refused to sign the new Constitution because it was Godless.

Please enlighten me.

[brien]

That is a remarkable claim since Jefferson was in France at the time.

I have shown before in other threads that TJ left specific instructions with Madison, and others, to share his writings concerning Constitutional questions. He also sent correspondence back across the "pond" regularly. For example, he became upset upon reading the first draft of the Constitution because it didn't contain the BOR, so he fired off notes back to Madison, until he later received his draft of the BOR. Keep in mind he was a Diplomat representing the US in France from only 1784 to 1789. The government was being formed long before this and Jefferson left a ton of documents with Madison and others to reflect his sentiments on any number of issues. This nation's government was transformed and took shape over a period of years, not merely formed in four short years that Jefferson was in France. To dismiss TJ as irrelevant to the Construction of the government because he was in France for a short period of time is to miss the rich foundations he laid for this country.

For example he wrote this document in 1777 and it was the foundation for religious tolerance in the US Constitution.

Thomas Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia

The following text is a draft written by Thomas Jefferson in 1777. It promoted religious freedom for the state of Virginia. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison promoted the bill for years before it was finally passed by the Virginia legislature. At the time, the Anglican Church was officially recognized as the state religion. The law disestablished that denomination. An alternative proposal that many other denominations be recognized was rejected. This bill is often called "the precursor to the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment" of the U.S. Constitution. 1 It is this Amendment that guarantees religious freedom for the individual, while erecting a wall of separation between church and government

.

So to say that TJ had no influence in shaping the Constitution or the newly forming government in 1789 is not quite accurate.


Here is some information on the signors of all three founding documents. All of these men were religious but their religious affiliations didn't translate into a government ruled by religion.

Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

The signers of the Declaration of Independence were a profoundly intelligent, religious and ethically-minded group. Four of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were current or former full-time preachers, and many more were the sons of clergymen. Other professions held by signers include lawyers, merchants, doctors and educators. These individuals, too, were for the most part active churchgoers and many contributed significantly to their churches both with contributions as well as their service as lay leaders. The signers were members of religious denominations at a rate that was significantly higher than average for the American Colonies during the late 1700s.

Here is some information on Diesm and its role in government in the 18th Century with particular light on the delegates.

Fifty-Five Delegates

All I was pointing out in my former post was that the Delegates were all mostly religious people, and even though they were influenced by religion in their thinking, and in the construction of the founding documents, they incorportated in the final draft of the US Constitution no provision for religion being established in the government. It is widely accepted that the framers used TJ's Va Statute on Religious Tolerance to frame the 1st Amendment with regard to religion. It is obvious that the colonies were Christian in their social composition, and that the Colonial governments were framed within the Anglican religion and members of the Anglican religion, but this was not allowed to be included in the newly framed Federal government. The letter of TJ to the Danbury Baptists which specifically used the term "wall of separation between church and state" is widely accepted as the benchmark that defines the issue of religion in government.

[Osborn F Enready]

Great posts, and links Brien. Appreciate the history.

[Century 25]

A few thoughts on the topic.. "a christian nation".. the so-called "conservative" lol.. (what a misnomer) ..party.. uses religion.. and a so-called "god" as powerful tool of control over the electorate they otherwise couldn't hustle.. namely the so-called "god-fearing" and hard working "average" American.. usually small town & "heartland" folk..

The so-called "conservatives" being the skull & bones gang.. yep.. the trillions of $$$ cut-throat syndicate that jerks W's strings.. look on your mo