Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room The Founding Fathers Weren't Christian

You know about Congress, so I assume you're asking about West Point. Yeah, they do, from the very first Sunday you're there. I know someone who was a cadet. Play with M16s and tanks on Saturday, go to church on Sunday. What a country!

I suspect if you asked them if they would like to have seen the Papists of their time trying to impose Catholicism on the United States as it had in much of Europe, or the Church of England trying to impose itself on the United States as it had in England, they would have been very supportive of the notion of freedom FROM religion.

Yep, I'm going with Jolly on this one.

It's freedom OF, not FROM religion, and though the US is not "Christian Country", it is a country whose population is more Christian than anything else. (Judaism, Deism, and atheism probably being distant second place contenders, and Islam and Hindu behind them.)

I think the founding fathers wanted to be absolutely 100% sure that two things did not happen: That our nation's laws come from the people and not from God, and that none of our citizens be punished, persecuted, or denied any of the protections of the government because of their beliefs.

But the US is a country of rather deep Christian roots. The majority of our population always has been and currently is Christian (though that may change in the future) and the character of our nation reflects the values (if not the beliefs themselves) of those who built and continue to build this country.

gryphon,

It's only a matter of time until some Hindu or Shintu upstart military genius challenges THAT one in Court!

(G-d, I wish I could manipulate pictures like that - it's the ultimate "bon-mot"! But don't even think about trying to teach me to be nice, my eyes will just glaze over. I'll get my son to explain when he has a chance - or do it for me. Did you know that when clicking on "properties" for your picture, it says: "LibertyM16"!)

Ariel

Dear Tony,

It takes so little to amuse you, glad you find enjoyment in the truth.

The fact remains that by either measure, original intent, or perception, the result is still the same.

Now you can argue about the exact meaning of Christian Country, but the average person would look at you like you were crazy.

You're not crazy, are you Tony?

OK all you history types, my brain has coughed up the following recollection from my high-school history: John Jay did not sign the Declaration of Independence, in fact he resigned from the Continental Congress to avoid having to sign it!

1) Is my memory faulty (quite possible)
2) If accurate, does anyone remember why he didn't want to sign it?

Curiously,
Nina

PS: The reason I made my proposal earlier is that I truly believe that any politician who supports an amendment to declare the US a "Christian country" is signing his/her own political death warrant. While not stated as such in the Constitution, I think freedom of religion is so deeply-rooted in the American psyche that it is almost without question.

Does that include even non Christians? Or is it an ecumenical type of service- with Priests, Rabbis, Mullahs etc. present- if Sundays are set aside for devotions for all denominations and religions?

If Chapel at West Point is anything like the one I attended every week in college, I don't think you have a lot to fear, Ariel.

The chaplains know they are presenting a service to people of more than one religion, and the message will be pretty universal, and uplifting.

I usually sat next to one of my friends who was a practicing muslim, and he managed to survive four years of it, so it must not be anything like spontaneous combustion.

And since all of these young men may one day find themselves in harm's way, a little preachin' never hurt anybody.

There are no atheists in a fox hole.

"Now Ariel, if da Priest there gives you one 'dem white cookies- don't take it!"

Nina,

Who is John Jay?

Jolly,

How do you define "Christian"? Remember earlier on in this thread, I distinguished between culturally Christian and "true believers".

Don't forget, we're supposedly addressing the affiliation of the "Founding Fathers", rather than Constitutional issues and so on. Didn't we recently spend - oh, about seven pages in this forum, dealing with the question of "Is the US a Christian Country?"

When it comes to personal religious affiliation, I tend to think the most expert people to speak about that are the individuals themselves, and these "Founding Fathers" have been pretty articulate in that regard.

Now, if you can identify somebody as religiously Christian, much less "saved", who does not believe in the divinity of Christ, nor in the Resurrection, nor in the Virgin Birth etc...seems to me you're engaging in some powerful rationalizations. Or self-contradiction. Or both. I might even qualify! Or your average Muslim.

Oh, and about the business of Chapel - There's a humongous difference between an "ecumencial" even inspirational Service, and a specifically Christian one, which what gryphon said they had at West Point.

For example, I attended a girls' boarding school with mandatory morning Chapel, and however distasteful (they inspected our uniforms as we entered to check for code infringements!), it was most certainly not Christian.

But let's return to the question of your definition of a Christian, Jolly - ball's in your Court.

And then back to the Founding Fathers!

Ariel

Jolly,

You may get this answer in Louisiana, but I am not so sure you would get that answer in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles or a host of other places.

You see, what people have come to realize is that those who argue strongest that the US is a Christian country do so for more than an academic reason. They do so because they have an agenda to impose fundamentalist Christian moral teachings on the society as a whole (after all, they argue, we ARE a Christian country and therefore people should not be against government policies based on these "Christian" values such as denying abortion to women or censoring what people can see on the Internet or denying the same civil benefits of marriage to loving and caring, committed same-sex couples as are given to any similar heterosexual couple).

They also seek to impose "Christian" religious practices on the society as a whole. (After all, they argue, "God" has been kicked out of the schools. Children should be led in prayer in schools. This should not happen in a "Christian" society).

And they seek to have specifically "Christian" theological and spiritual concepts imposed on the society. (After all, they argue, what is wrong with a prayer to Jesus before a high school football game? Those who don't believe in Jesus as God should just show respect because after all, this IS a "Christian" country.)

The fact that the predominate religious affiliation in this coutnry may be Christian does NOT make this a Christian country -- and certainly cannot be used as the basis for the changes in our laws, customs and mores that are sought by those people seem bound and determined to have this country labeled Christian.

Renauda,



Same wit' dat Kool-ade, I bet!

No, I think you would get that answer in most of the "fly-over" country, and I would think that you would find the same answer on most of the East and West Coast.

If you'd like to go a bit further abroad, ask any Middle Easterner.

Ariel,

Without splitting hairs too much, over a subject that I believe was settled long ago, ask yourself, "What is a Christian?"

Then apply that definition to the founding fathers.

I believe that in most people's broad definitions, they would qualify.

Because if they weren't Christian, what would you call them? And what would you call the majority religion of the populence at that time?

Jolly, on the definition of a Christian: Well, to them we're all Crusaders, Zionists and Masons anyway (or all three)!

Now...down to brass tacks.

Oh, by the way (we're crossing electrron beams here), what I would call them?

I'd call them "Deists" or "Unitarians" - same as they mostly described themselves (as it says in the link...if you...read...it? Don't judge by the label I gave it! :p ).

I think that's a mighty thick hair to split - as in a steel cable trussing a suspension bridge!

Note: edited out reference to Franklin being a "Friend" after Shantinik's comments below.

Franklin wasn't a Friend -- though when in France, it was politically useful for him not to disabuse people of the idea. Paine was, in a manner of speaking. As was the man without whom the Declaration of Independence would never have been signed, the very, very conservative, very wary Dickinson of Pennsylvania. Hopkins from Rhode Island was, as was one of the signers from North Carolina.

As to whether all those folks are Christian, it would easy to do a test: go to Jolly's church -- ask if they would accept 60 or 70 folks as members who don't believe in the Trinity, the Resurrection, salvation through the death of Jesus, the special divinity of Jesus, the special divine inspiration of the Bible, the miracles, and don't believe in original sin. Not only that, but that they are going to be pretty loud about it.

"Well, I would not at all be amused if it were otherwise,
as we did everything possible
to raise you and all the other colonials properly."

Shantinik:

Does not have to be Jolly's church it could be any number of churches in North America or elsewhere on the planet.

How then did they view the separation of church and state? Seems to me that if they were as you describe above they would have believed in the total separation of church and state.

The article Arial links to is fascinating. You don't have to read far, before it becomes apparent how quotes out of context, as well as quotes of documents are used to support the author's agenda.

For example, citing the "Treaty of Friendship:"
"It was during Adam's administration that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, which states in Article XI that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion."

Well, the U.S. has signed plenty of "Treaties of Freindship" over the years. This particular one:
Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary.
Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796 (3 Ramada I, A. H. 1211), and at Algiers January 3, 1797 (4 Rajab, A. H. 1211). Original in Arabic.

As part of the treaty, and to appease any concern that the U.S. would use any religious basis to justify a conflict, Article XI complete (note that besides taken out of context, the author also left out the first word "as" :
My point is not to start a debate over this treaty, but rather to point out spin.
===========

I'm also with Jolly on this. The colonies had strong religious constituencies. The point of the exercise was to ratify a constitution. So, freedom of religion was the best solution, not freedom from religion. The colonies insisted on the Bill of Rights amended to the constitution, before there would be complete agreement on a federal government. A common sense solution.

rvaga,

I appreciate your pointing out "spin" (I am quite against unremarked editing of quotes - I think its tantamount to lying, in fact).

However, please recall as I said near the bottom of the last page, I am specifically questioning commonly held assumptions about the personal beliefs of the "Founding Fathers", not any strategic, poltical decisions they made to achieve a consensus in writing the Declaration of Independence, Constitution, Bill of Rights or for any other reason.

Nobody has to alter his or her own belief structures on this account, but to make false attributions about those of anyone else is, I think, very dishonest in itself. One has to ask, in fact, why would anyone feel the need to do so? Because to find that our heros do not share our conception of God exactly, makes us call this conception into question ourselves? Why should there be any practical meaning attached to their personal religious identities, other than the need to validate ourselves?

The political thinking of these courageous innovators, stands quite solidly in its own right. We can espouse it or not as we choose, independent of their (or our) religious convictions - exactly, I dare say, as they would have wanted us to do!

Ariel