The USA was NOT founded on christian values.

Question Centroles. When has anyone on these boards said that homosexuality should be illegal? I have not seen that and since I am a stickler for accuracy, I really would like to know.

Just as an historical note, separate from any political issues you're talking about, the Declaration of Independence mentions God a number of times. Although, of course, the Declaration has no legal status, it is the backbone of our country.

Why is Chirtmas day a federal holiday?

You might find this interesting:

http://clerkkids.house.gov/laws/inspectLaw/inspect_TextAll.html

Seems that Christmas became a Federal holiday in 1870. Don't know what they did before that.

Not really, it mentions creator and Natures God, terminology common to Deists.

Re: The USA was NOT founded on christian values.


Wishful thinking and the knowledge that if you say something often enough a large number of people will accept it as fact. Why are we in Iraq?....Have you forgotten 9/11? Barf!!!

1. "Creator" indicates a belief in God.
2. Deism (Nature's God) indicates a belief in God.

In addition, it says:

3. "Appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions."
4. "With a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence."

Three of these directly refer to a God, and the 4th hints strongly in that direction.

Therefore, since all I claimed was that God is mentioned, I am correct.

Here, have a cee-gar, i'm so happy for you . . .

The Declaration of Independence may not be, strictly speaking, the law of the land, however the Supremes have frequently referred to the "unalienable rights" of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the opinions handed down.

The title of the thread is a statement that the United States was not founded on christian values. I could not agree more. In none of these documents is specific reference made to a christian concept of morality or value. The Declaration of Independence lays out a case for rebellion which definitely is not referential to any religious code or dogma:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed. Not from the dispensation of a deity, not from the revealed truth of scripture, not from the express or implied moral code of any sect--those powers derive from the consent of the governed. Anyone who is not aware of how repugnant the mixing of governance and religion was to Americans in the 18th century, and the historical precedents from which they drew their opinions, has made but a shallow study of the inextricably entertwined histories of America and the English crown in the 170 years prior to the Revolution. To swear upon the bible is repugnant to many devout christians--the constitution calls for officers of the government to swear or affirm their intention to support the constitution, precisely because that document is as carefully worded as possible to avoid any taint of religious interference in its promulgation, or of the intent to interfer in any religious belief or practice. The constitutions biggest hurdle to clear in ratification was the absence of a bill of rights. The Federalists pulled off the stunt with a promise to immediately amend the constitution by the inclusion of a bill of rights. Frederick Muhlenberg, as the first Speaker of the House of Representatives, sent to the several states twelve proposed amendments from the First Congress. The third amendment proposed was the first to be ratified . . .

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This is the sole mention of religion in our constitution. It was no accident--no one then wished religion to meddle in governance, nor government to meddle in religion.

Well, clearly the founders were determined to keep religion and government separate - determined enough to include the requirement in the Constitution.

To deny the influence of the precepts of Christianity upon 18th century America, and the Founding Fathers, is to attempt to refashion the past so it will conform to one's present day conceit.

The 18th century Church was a far more formidable political institution than its 21st century successor. An aversion to the influence of the Church on government in 18th century America should not be confused with an aversion to religious principles.

At the same time, it is equally misinformed to assert that our nation was founded on Christian precepts.

"The 18th century Church" is a type of expression which would lead one to assume that there were a monolithic christian institution in this country to which one can attribute powers and policies, which can then be dissected and evaluated. Nothing could be further from the truth. Arthur Schelsinger has more than adequately demonstrated that the power of institutionalized religion in colonial America was restricted to a politically active elite in some parts of some of the colonies, and that a significant minority to a bare majority of inhabitants were "unchurched." New Hampshire had no recognized estalished church, and its population which were chruch goers were congretationalists of the old stripe, who recognized no religious institution beyond their own congregation. In Massachusetts, the Congregationalists were ostensibly the established church--John Winthrop had woven together membership in established congregation with political participation. As with all of the colonies, Massachusetts had need of the profane--sailors, craftsmen, professional men and hardy farmers for the "frontier," all of whom might or might not belong to recognized congregations. The heavy-handed repression of revivalism during the Great Awakening eroded public respect for the established church, and the political struggle on the "frontier" in the Connecticutt valley, of the small holder against the "River Gods," further undermined public respect for institutionalized religion. Rhodes Island had been founded by those fleeing the oppression of the established church in Massachusetts. Connecticutt had an establishment of Congregationalist as well, and an equally bitter history of government repression during the Great Awakening. Those of that colony's population who were concerned with religion divided along the lines of "Old Light" and "New Light," and with a "New Light" preacher running Yale on the eve of the Revolution, political strife which rekindled the old animosities destroyed established religion there before the fighting was well underway. New York and New Jersey had been predominantly Dutch Reformed before James, Duke of York, took New Amsterdam. The Dutch then were just about the most tolerant of sectarianism of any nation in Europe, and the majority of settlers in both colonies after they were taken from Holland were either small sectaries, or unchurched. Presbyterians there were badly divided by the schism resulting from revivalism during the Great Awakening, as were the Baptists, but neither group represented a majority of the "churched," let alone the entire populations of those colonies. Pennsylvania was a possession of the Penn family, granted to William Penn by Charles II in recognition of Charles Penn's support of Charles I in the civil wars. William Penn was a member of the Society of Friends. Although there was a considerable body of "Quaker" merchants in Philadelphia, they never constituted a majority of the population--the region was already being settled when Penn's people arrived. Therefore, there was not only no established church in Pennsylvania, as a "frontier" colony--almost constantly under attack by the Indian allies of Fontenac and the other French governors at Québec--had a very mixed population in terms of religious belief, with Moravians and other various German charismatic sects, as well as Scots-Irish Presbyterians most in evidence--in those cases in which the settlers even had an interest in organized religion.

Delaware had been an abortive Swedish colony, and although unable to establish Lutheranism, the high proportion of Swedish and German Lutherans as well as other German Protestants, assured that no other sect would become the established church. As is true with all of the colonies, large numbers of "unchurched" laborers and craftsmen in the cities and towns beggar most of the specious assertions regarding the religious character of early America. Maryland was a refuge for Catholics, but that religion still operated under legal restrictions, and it was also a dumping ground for English convicts ("Stonewall" Jackson was descended from two Maryland convicts)--no established religion there, and no religious tests for office. Virginia had the Anglican Church as the established religion. As with Maryland, there was a significant convict population, and as with all of the colonies, it filled with men and women who were either sectaries, or not the devotees of any church. On the eve of revolution, Patrick Henry first came to attention by defending a parish against the claims of a C of E preacher--he lost, and the jury awarded the cleric damages of one penny. Jefferson's religious toleration statute put paid to the already weak authority of the Anglican Church. There was never any established church in the Carolinas and Georgia--the latter was envisioned as a penal colony, but quickly filled up with a heterogenous mix of sectaries and the unchurched. In the hill country "frontiers" of these colonies, among those who were known to be members of any congregation, the Scots-Irish Presbyterians and French Calvinists predominated, and both groups were strictly congregational in make-up, with no desire for an establishment of religion.



The foregoing statements are the conceit of a partisan viewpoint, and are completely unwarranted by even a casual study of reliable sources on religion and religious institutions in the colonies. In particular, they display a complete ignorance of the crucially significant work of Arthur Schlesinger on the theretofore ignored population of craftsmen, laborers, small holders, convicts, sailors and subsistence farmers in the colonies. To speak of "the 18th century Church" is to play fast and loose with historical evidence. To speak of "a far more formidable political institution" is either a display of willful ignorance, of self-induced delusion, or of witting disingenuous propaganda parading as historical fact.

It is impossible to state with any certainty whether or not and to what degree the principles of christianity had any influence on the "Founding Fathers." The only reaonsable part of Finn's mini-rant here, however is in the phrase ". . . it is equally misinformed to assert that our nation was founded upon Christian precepts." It is as misinformed to continue to attempt to pedal the historical myth of which so many Americans are so fond, one largely created by the self-promotion of the Congregationalist in Massachusetts in the mid-19th century, that America was founded by religious refugees seeking religious freedom. The Congregationalists then were under seige, in mid-century, Massachusetts elected a Baptist as governor (Gasp ! ! !), and the former Congregationalist ascendancy set out to create the myth of religious America and the Pilgrim Fathers. To do so, they were obliged to ignore that Puritans established themselves in Massachusetts in the express hope of practicing religious interolerance; to ignore that almost immediately after the foundation of their "shining city on the hill" people such as Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson challenged their authority and were formally exiled; to ignore that Viriginia was founded earlier, and completely without religious intent; and were obliged to assert a far greater significance to Massachusetts in the history of the thirteen colonies than is warranted by the historical record. It is ironic to my mind that the Congregationalists, who abhored "irregular" and revivalist practices are the source for a myth to which contemporary fundatmenalists cling as to a life preserver in a sea of "paganism" and "secular humanism."

You need to do your homework much better than that, Finn, before posting such egregiously ill-informed statments. With some education, you might learn not to attempt to pedal such crap in a venue in which you will be quickly called on it.

Possibly so, but if one examines it in the context within which it was used, one might not feel compelled to provide us all with a long winded lecture on Arthur Schelsinger's scholarship concerning 18th century religious institutions in America.

One need not be a history teacher or buff to recognize that there is no monolithic christian institution in 21st America either, and so a less belligerent reading of my statement will likely appreciate that I was using "Church" as a representative term to compare the relative extent of the political influences of religious institutions in each time period, and, which I may add, made to attempt to limit to 18th century America. The Founding Fathers were quite familiar with the influence of The Church in European politics during the 18th and prior centuries.

Admittedly though, my choice of terms was imprecise and could easily have been improved upon. Thanks for pointing out this transgression, albeit in such a bombastic manner.

I suppose it's impossible to state with full certainty what influences guided any historical figure, but it doesn't take too much scholarship to realize that as a group, The Founding Fathers (and 18th century America in general) were very much influenced by religious precepts.

And I will continue to stand by the statement:

"An aversion to the influence of the Church on government in 18th century America [by the Founding Fathers] should not be confused with an aversion to religious principles," unless and until you can, with your wealth of historical knowledge or links to history sites, prove otherwise.

Actually, a strong feeling of Christian principle amongst the early leaders of our country actually makes the case stronger that America was not founded on Christian values.

After all, it would have been the easiest thing in the world for those values/mindsets to have influenced the wording of the constitution. But for such religious gentlemen, to have worded our founding documents SO carefully as to omit references to Christianity, is a sign of just how important they considered the seperation of Church and State.

Now, one might say 'but they still had Christian values, right?' Which is true. It is undeniable that there was some influence by Christianity on the founding of our country. But the founders actually address that, and make a step back to base principles of logic! With the statement:

'We hold these truths to be self-evident.'

They are stepping PAST religion into true morality - a morality and value system based upon logic and judgement. Kudos to our founding fathers, man those guys did a great job.

Cycloptichorn

I agree with everything you have said, Cycloptichorn.

I would also add that our founding fathers were determined to split from the type of religious state found in England, where the King is also Defender Of The Faith. They were intent on removing religion from the actions of government. They saw government as a wholly secular institution, founded on principles of democratic representation.

Current day religious fundamentalists, in the United States and elsewhere, will always fight to tear down the wall between church and state. They want their own values imposed everywhere, and on everyone. Here it is fundamentalist Christians, elsewhere it is fundamentalist Moslems, but they are both pressing toward similar ends involving a fusion of government and religion.

I wouldn't say our country was founded on Christianity, but I would say that it was founded on Juedo/Christian philosophy. It wasn't founded on Muslim beliefs and it wasn't founded on Buddhist, or Hindu beliefs. It was founded on Juedo/Christian philosophy. Most of the founding fathers were of a Christian back round and had a belief in God. The only person I can think of who was anything close to being an Atheist was Franklin. Most were like myself, that being deists.

And where in the U.S. constitution do you find evidence of this Judeo/Christian philosophy?

In the freedoms that are offered as part of the American way of life. Can you find an equal to the US system at the time?

Oddly enough, the idea that the State shall establish no religion is a Judeo/Christian belief. It is antithetical to Islam.

The Constitution is only one document. As in all countries, the Law of the Land is made up of traditions and intentions.
Our Constitution takes from the Bible; the Magna Carta and the Justinian Code of Roman Law, among other documents.
Our money says "In G-d We Trust."
Our Founding Fathers funded Church services in the goverment chapel.
The Pilgrims viewed themselves as the New Jews, with America as the Promised Land.
The Declaration is just that - a declaration of intent.
The prayers of Congress; the swearing in of the President on the Bible; the language of documents that refer to the Bible as precedent - all of these make up America.
There was no concept of Islam or animism or Hinduism or Buddhism or any of the other multitude of religions in American traditions and morays.
As we have evolved, some other doctrines have been added on to the Judeo/Christian tradition, but they have not yet replaced them.

I have no links nor proofs of how this nation was founded, other than the documents with which we are all familiar.

However Biblical law (not necessarily "Christianity" which is supposed to be a strict adherence to the teaching of Jesus Christ) has been followed in our courts for all of my 'long' life.
Law against killing, laws requiring a divorce when a married couple decide to part permanently, laws against stealing, lying. AND,
Up until not so very long ago... laws against sodomy.
In fact, it seemed to me the Bible supported our respecting those who rule over us, and the rulers... supposedly respected "God" and the people.
Believe it or not, religions were not that different back then... just the intensity with which they were preached and followed.
Some, as is reported in the New Testament, 'honor ME with their lips, but their heart is far from ME.'
Still others have a 'form of religion' but deny it has any power to change anything.