The United States was not founded on Christianity.

How about this as a notion: America was founded by Christians, but for what ever reason, they chose to found a secular government.

This notion may seen odd, but let's not forget that colonial founders like Roger Williams had their own experiances with the puritans etc. Let's not forget that the Virginia Baptists were one of the groups that most greatly fought for separation of church and state.

It would appear to me that modern day christians have lost touch with what the USA was founded on.

Roger Williams in his book "The Bloody Tenant" talks about the interworkings of the persecutor and the persecuted. He claims, and I also believe, that the persecutor actually lashes out at those who wish to have what they cherish the most.

I think that in modern day America the spiritual landscape is changin in sucha way that this kind of thought is coming more and more common. Modern day Christian's rush to stick a flag in the earth and claim the USA is a one man race. I see this as being quite pathetic and very untrue to their own beliefs.

Roger Williams, a Christian, also talked about the notion of "authority." He said that authority without the corresponding "jurisdiction," was meaningless. He claimed that his god had jurisdiction over his soul, and his country should have jurisdiction over his body and his property. He was a very devout Christian, and he knew then that relgious othdoxy was something that should not have jurisdiction on our laws etc.

I'd like to see what modern day Christians arguing for the separation of church and state would say to Roger Williams and the Virginia Baptists.

Tea Party anyone?
K
O

The Puritans and Lutherans were here, I believe, for religious freedom as well. But, alas, they are still Christian. As much as I hate it, I don't know how to prove to hard core religious nuts that we are a nation built on religious tolerance.

Re: The United States was not founded on Christianity.


I agree with this.

I often wonder why we always refer back to what the founders of the country intended.

Yep, it would be interesting to see if any poster is up to providing a logical rationalization as to why we should / must refer back to what the founders of the country (presumably) intended, either Canada or the US.

meh... Personally, I'm not opposed to looking back at the founders thoughts. I don't think that their intentions should make for our contemporary laws/amendments, but I do see their intentions to be vital to the original constitution and bill of rights as far as inturpretation is concerned.

I think a balance can be achieved.

Chumly - The only part of the challenge I'm up to is proving that the US founders intended for the constitution to adapt to the changing times. But I don't think that is somthing you'd argue.

The motives otherwise are lost. Our founders were not a homogenous bunch; they had many different ideas and philosophies. I agree that using this as a meter is odd because any founder could be cited to make the costitution mean something else.

Oddly, in this moment, I feel more than ever that the constitution is as maluable as the bible.....creepy.

T
K
O

It would be a serious mistake to assume that because the Puritans came here in order to freely practice religion as they saw fit, that they were devoted to religious freedom--they were not. The Puritans became the Congregationalist, and both Massachusetts and Connecticut had established Congregational churches, and maintained them until well after the Revolution. I refer you to the treatment in Massachusetts of Roger Williams and Anne Hutchinson, both of whom were exiled for heterodox views. Members of the Society of Friends, "Quakers" could be and were flogged publicly and expelled from the colony, and could be executed out of hand if they returned and began preaching again.

Just because people came here to be free to practice their brand of religion is no good reason to assume that they believed in religious tolerance.

Boss, I wasn't assuming that at all. I do know about them Puritans.

I have heard "Puritan" defined is someone with a mortal fear that somewhere, somehow, someone might be having a good time.

For our purposes in American history, Puritans are the religious ancestors of the modern day Congregationalists. When John Knox returned to England after briefly visiting Geneva, he promoted the teachings of John Calvin. This became most popular in Scotland, where the Protestant national church known as the Kirk was founded. They eventually became Presbyterians. (Presbyter means an elder, and the name implies a church governed by the elders of the congregations.) Those who spread the word in England were referred to in a sneering manner by high church Anglicans as "puritans," but they wore the title like a badge. So, history records the name as Puritan, and it is a very specific reference. The Massachusetts Bay Company was chartered by a group of Puritans, who had the vision of creating a "godly republic" (another reference to Calvin, who wished to found a "godly republic" at Geneva) in the wilderness.

E_brown, i believe that was H. L. Mencken.

Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.

-- H. L. Mencken

But i like this better:

The puritan hated bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.

-- Thomas McCauley

Mencken also wrote:

"The objection to Puritans is not that they try to make us think as they do, but that they try to make us do as they think"