iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

The Myth Of A 'Christian Nation'

First Posted: 09/16/10 09:12 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 06:40 PM ET

Christian Nation

By A. James Rudin
Religion News Service

(RNS) The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is credited with saying that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts."

Some leaders of the religious right would have us believe that America was founded as a "Christian nation." The facts, however, say otherwise.

While the Founding Fathers, with their diverse Christian backgrounds, had every opportunity to make the fledgling United States into a "Christian nation," the factual record reveals they consciously refused to do so.

And it was not, as some opine, a mistake or an oversight.

Their reasons were a combination of history, demography and the Founders' shared belief they were creating something unique in the world.

They remembered the Church of England's persecution of religious minorities, including the Pilgrims and Quakers. The Founders were also haunted by the ghosts of Europe's Thirty Years' War (1618-1648) when huge numbers of Protestants and Catholics killed each other in the name of God.

The text of the Declaration of Independence contains just four theological references: "nature's God," "Creator," "Supreme Judge of the world," and "Divine Providence." There is not a single specific mention of either Jesus or Christianity. The Declaration, reflecting the signatories' collective thinking, was carefully written and edited; words were included, or not, for a reason.

The U.S. Constitution, written in 1787, has only this religious wording: "in the year of our Lord," a common phrase still used on some legal documents and diplomas.

There is not, however, any constitutional authorization for the establishment of any religion in the U.S. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Article Six rejects a "religious test" for public office, and the First Amendment prohibits the establishment of religion while at the same time providing for its free exercise.

There were demographic factors at work, as well. By 1776, the U.S. was already religiously diverse, with several Protestant groups, minority Catholic and Jewish populations, and a large number of African-American slaves, some of them Muslim.

James Madison, a Presbyterian attorney from Virginia and a future president, predicted a "multiplicity of sects" in the U.S., similar to diverse political parties. We see now that Madison was, and remains, correct.

Even so, the question of whether the U.S. would officially become a "Christian nation" was in doubt until a titanic struggle was waged in Virginia between Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry in 1785.

Patrick, the state's governor and an Anglican (today he'd be known as an Episcopalian), wanted residents to pay a church tax to support religious institutions. Because of Virginia's population at the time, most taxes would have gone to the Anglican Church. Supporting the tax was John Marshall, another Anglican and a future Chief Justice.

Jefferson, who was also raised in the Anglican tradition, strongly opposed the proposal, and he enlisted Madison and Baptist minister John Leland as allies in the bitter campaign to defeat the bill in the Virginia Legislature.

Thanks to the efforts of Jefferson and his allies, Henry's tax legislation failed, and the following year, 1786, the Legislature adopted Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom by a vote of 74 to 20.

The Statute has had an extraordinary influence upon American history for 225 years. It provided that:

" No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever ... nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."

Those are facts. And now my opinion:

Had Henry's church tax become law, it is likely that other states would have followed Virginia's lead and adopted similar measures. Had that happened, it would have been a far different America for every citizen, whether religiously identified or not.

A Henry victory in 1785 would have made it much more difficult to write the Constitution two years later without including specific religious language and/or a provision to approve a church tax and an established state religion.

Thanks to Jefferson's victory in the Virginia Legislature, that did not happen. It's a historical fact--not an opinion--worth remembering.

(Rabbi Rudin, the American Jewish Committee's senior interreligious adviser, is the author of the forthcoming "Christians & Jews, Faith to Faith: Tragic History, Promising Present, Fragile Future.")

FOLLOW HUFFPOST RELIGION

By A. James Rudin Religion News Service (RNS) The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is credited with saying that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own fa...
By A. James Rudin Religion News Service (RNS) The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan is credited with saying that "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own fa...
Filed by Clay Chiles  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,421
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (20 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:49 PM on 10/16/2010
"Well, I have watched the series, I have studied both the Bible and the Enlightenment, and the development of American political thought.

There really isn't much more I can do. "

You can do your homework.
You can support your claims with evidence.
If you have something from that movie type the quote or get it from a transcript. Or give a minute:second mark and I can watch the quote.
You were just telling that other user it is their job to bring the context-ed material to the table.

You don't support any of your Bible claims with anything other than hot air.

I have studied all those things well before our first meeting as well, and I stand ready to do more study if you will show yourself equal to the task.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:37 AM on 10/16/2010
Prediction: You. Have. Nothing. lol.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:37 AM on 10/16/2010
See how the huffpo author does not give context-ed scholarly proof of his claim, "a common phrase still used on some legal documents and diplomas."

In no way does that prove that the Founders did not mean exactly what they said, "Lord," even giving the year of birth of the Lord.

It is the job of the accuser to prove their claim. The Founders were overwhelmingly Christian and Nicene Creed; if the claim is that they "burned the midnight oil" to make sure there were absolutely no claims to Jesus, then you better find a letter written at that time where they say, "people are asking us if we meant Jesus, and we want it clear that we did not." Because it definitely is, a commonly accepted reference to Jesus. Ask Muslims why they prefer a.h. or any other religion that doesn't get big into Christmas.

Cool :)

So I'm calling "stinky smell," and I want your scholarly sources on this because this was the very first thing we ever talked about. And because you were going around on this website yesterday demanding accountability from posters in this spirit.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:27 AM on 10/16/2010
"The fact is that there WERE no references to Jesus in the Founding documents (Declaration, Constitution). "

Please prove your claim is true with the same contexted statements that you were demanding yesterday from the person on the other topic.

I refer you to my original post on this huffpo story comments section. I refer to your reply to that comment of mine.

Please note that the author of this huffpo story is a rabbi.
http://www.icsahome.com/infoserv_profile/rudin_james.asp

Let us see if when he writes to other rabbis if he _ever_ dates his documents from Adam instead of fully spelling out "year of our Lord (Jesus)." That will be neat-o .
This will be an occasional aside.
I will check places he has published including:
http://reformjudaismmag.org
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encyclopaedia_Judaica
Of course my only minimal Hebrew skills is Going to complicate this. I might do some Google-ing of his Hebrew language publishings. Maybe I can check his denomination and see if they do everything using the Jesus-centric calendar or CE (which doesn't work for Muslims who use A.H.).

Anyway, I want you to start participating in this as a study partner and citing your claims with scholarship.

Because when you look, even this Rabbi (though he tries to talk past it) is seeing a reference to Jesus explicitly in the Founding documents.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:45 AM on 10/16/2010
See you another day :)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:44 AM on 10/16/2010
"I would like to know a little bit more about your view of the Bible. I have shared mine."

You have not done your homework. I already responded in kind to your view.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:12 AM on 10/16/2010
So, again, what was the constitution of this post-exodus group?

Exodus 20 gives us the 10 commandments... "stone tablets that Moses brought down from Mt. Horeb and smashed, if you believe in that sort of thing." (Raiders of the Lost Ark" (1981)).

And we can now start talking about rights (Yay!)

Right to property ("You shall not steal.")
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:13 AM on 10/16/2010
1981 was 30 years ago. Don't tell anybody.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:29 AM on 10/16/2010
Was there a constitutional convention?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:48 AM on 10/16/2010
9 The LORD said to Moses, "I am going to come to you in a dense cloud, so that the people will hear me speaking with you and will always put their trust in you." Then Moses told the LORD what the people had said.

10 And the LORD said to Moses, "Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes 11 and be ready by the third day, because on that day the LORD will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. 12 Put limits for the people around the mountain and tell them, 'Be careful that you do not go up the mountain or touch the foot of it. Whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. 13 He shall surely be stoned or shot with arrows; not a hand is to be laid on him. Whether man or animal, he shall not be permitted to live.' Only when the ram's horn sounds a long blast may they go up to the mountain."

14 After Moses had gone down the mountain to the people, he consecrated them, and they washed their clothes. 15 Then he said to the people, "Prepare yourselves for the third day. Abstain from sexual relations."
-----------------
This is a pretty cool way to start a convention.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:10 AM on 10/16/2010
So what was the constitution of this post-exodus group?

Quickly let's note Thomas Paine's proposal to have a "Continental Conference that could draft a Continental Charter." The founder's didn't word it exactly that way, they had a Continental Congress to draft the Declaration of Independence and later a Constitutional Convention to work on the constit.

So what do we see in the Bible? (oh stop already with the egg before the chicken; let's identify parallels then worry about who gets intellectual property rights).

Is there any special gathering of the people or their representatives before anything like a declaration or constitution?

Exodus 19:
" 1 In the third month after the Israelites left Egypt...2...and Israel camped there in the desert in front of the mountain. "
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:09 AM on 10/16/2010
3 Then Moses went up to God, and the LORD called to him from the mountain and said, "This is what you are to say to the house of Jacob and what you are to tell the people of Israel: 4 'You yourselves have seen what I did to Egypt, and how I carried you on eagles' wings and brought you to myself. 5 Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant, then out of all nations you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, 6 you [a] will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words you are to speak to the Israelites."

So they are free because the Lord God declared them free. That is a cool Declaration of Independence. And what better author? No offense to T-Jeff.

7 So Moses went back and summoned the elders of the people and set before them all the words the LORD had commanded him to speak. 8 The people all responded together, "We will do everything the LORD has said." So Moses brought their answer back to the LORD.

And you have a Sinai Peninsula (not continental) Congress accepted the draft from the subcommittee (Moses's report from God). And all the people pledge allegiance to the new gov't.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:47 AM on 10/16/2010
We just looked at Exodus 19 and saw that there maybe was an intricate hierarchical system of judges introduced to go along side with the system of rule by tribal elders already in place. Two separate branches of gov't.

Sorry I forgot to post about the elders and the tribes, I can do that if any one wants. What happened is that the man Jacob had his name changed to Israel. So there literally was a man named Israel (that is where we get the name of the modern nation). The man Israel had 12 sons. Each of these 13 men (13 colonies) moved to Egypt during a famine. One of the 12 brothers was already there, arranging the move.

During the next 400 years, the children of the 12 brothers kept their heritage and so there were 12 distinct tribes "of Israel" by the time of Moses. Each of these tribes had elders. We see Moses meeting with them. They were the leaders even though all of them had been enslaved under the Pharaoh.

So the elders were the 1st branch of their post-exodus government.

The Exodus 19 passage, fully contexted as I presented it, shows the second branch of the government, the Judges. Yes, there is an entire book named "Judges", but that comes later.

And of course you have the CEO, prophet Moses, and his military chief, Joshua, the original 007 minus any skirt-chasing. And of course Aaron, the chief priest and brother of Moses.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:02 AM on 10/16/2010
I meant Exodus 18, not 19.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:00 AM on 10/10/2010
Just saying hey. Maybe we will continue Monday.

John Locke's work on government spends a lot of time on the Literalist's Creation account of Adam even tracing the greek septuagint and hebrew words and explaining their meaning. He believes in both Adam and Eve and also the Flood, etc etc etc.

"Religion and Christianity in particular is perhaps the most important influence on the shape of Locke's philosophy."
Uzgalis, William, "John Locke", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2010 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.),

His whole life he held himself out to be anglican. I did find a note that perhaps maybe he privately had doubts, but that's the thing, it's private so people can only guess. But at the end of the day, for developing his publications he relied on Nicene Creed.

And wait until you see what he said about Atheism. Also interesting note on Islam.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:58 AM on 10/10/2010
(pt2)

I see Thomas Paine's Common Sense is giving the exact same Bible verses I have been giving.

wiki "Paine structured Common Sense like a sermon and relied on Biblical references to make his case to the people.[3] Historian Gordon S. Wood described Common Sense as, "the most incendiary and popular pamphlet of the entire revolutionary era".[4]"

Paine's problem is that after giving a beautiful Christian-esque pamphlet widely distributed at a crucial point in the days of the revolution, he comes back later and says that he didn't believe any of the Bible parts. But there is no question that he relied on the Bible and Christianity in his pamphlet. Blocks of text discussing the form of gov't in the Bible.
photo
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
08:25 PM on 10/13/2010
It is important to realize about many of the Founders that what they wrote PUBLICLY and what they wrote PRIVATELY about their religious views were often VERY different -- even expressing opposing views.

Paine knew his audience, and "Common Sense" was meant for a wide readership.

Some of his later works have different ideas.

The point I am making in bringing up Locke and others is not that they were atheists. Or all came to the idea of Separation all at once.

Just as the US developed its concepts of nationhood (a very big and unresolved question was -- where does Sovereignty lie -- with the individual states? Or with the people of the nation as a whole (with the central government) -- it took a Civil War to resolve that question.

Likewise, the idea of a secular nation is one that developed gradually, though make no mistake about it, this was very much one of Jefferson's goals, and he managed to get a guarantee that the new government would enact a Bill of Rights, which would make it clear that there would be no national chuch.

You might be interested in the PBS series "God in America" -- which you can watch on-line, and which discusses these very issues (in part, anyway).

http://www.pbs.org/godinamerica/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Andres64
Religion is a sectually transmitted disease.
08:40 PM on 10/13/2010
Excellent Series!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
06:49 PM on 10/15/2010
"It is important to realize about many of the Founders that what they wrote PUBLICLY and what they wrote PRIVATELY about their religious views were often VERY different -- even expressing opposing views."

Starting to sound like a conspiracy theory?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:33 AM on 10/08/2010
Exodus 18
13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, "What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?"

15 Moses answered him, "Because the people come to me to seek God's will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God's decrees and laws."
see part2
photo
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
09:06 PM on 10/13/2010
Again, 123, you are "prooftexting" here. -- You can see my post below, but I dislike this practice, because it wrenches a passage out of its context, and when one does that it becomes all but impossible to determine the original meaning of a text.

And that is being intellectually dishonest.

As I said, one can take passages out of context and make the Bible say anything one wants it to say.

You are simply refusing to recognize that the Enlightenment is a different thing altogether from the Bible.

Either that or you are making the claim that the Enlightenment is Divine Revelation.

While there may be things in common, and while one may have had an indirect influence on the other, they are completely different sets of ideas.

And I am not saying that the Bible's ideas are bad, or inferior to that of the Enlightenment -- just that they are DIFFERENT.

And while the BIble has a lot to say about the City of God, what you have to remember is that we are living in the City of Man -- and that means that we live in a pluralistic society.

And the Enlightenment is a better foundation for governing in the "City of Man" because of that pluralism.

Or to put it the way Winston Churchill did, "Democracy is the worst form of government -- EXCEPT for all the others"

Theocracies simply don't work -- they always end up in Inquisitions and burnings.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
05:52 PM on 10/15/2010
You have made a number of claims against me as a person. I will address those at our other thread which exists for that purpose to keep this discussion free of personal issues.

Thanks for helping keep this organized.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:33 AM on 10/08/2010
part2
17 Moses' father-in-law replied, "What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people's representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them the decrees and laws, and show them the way to live and the duties they are to perform. 21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied."

24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:36 AM on 10/08/2010
So this is the beginning of one of the branches of their government.
photo
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
09:44 PM on 10/13/2010
It may well have been, but I can assure you that they would have as much comprehension of our form of government as they would of the germ theory of disease.

Ancient Israel was a monarchy (after a period of tribal, and ad hoc leadership) but generally speaking it was, like its neighbors, a theocracy, complete with their own national God -- "Yahweh"

The REVOLUTIONARY idea that Yahweh was not just one national deity among others did not occur until the fall of the First Temple, the destruction of Jerusalem, and the Exile.

The technical term for this is "development of doctrine" -- where our understanding of a doctrine gradually unfolds. You can see this clearly in the Hebrew Scriptures (for example, the idea of an afterlife and a Resurrection was a late development) and also in the New Testament, where it took three centuries to work out the NATURE (again, Greek influence) of Jesus.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:43 AM on 10/08/2010
Hey I might not be around the next few days. (just in case I'm not).

Have a good weekend (in case I'm not back).
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:15 PM on 10/07/2010
test
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:01 PM on 10/07/2010
We started with Genesis 1 to see if there were anything in the Bible that even looks like rights, equality before the law or separation of powers. The statement has been that you cannot find anything like this in the Bible.

We began to see something in Genesis 1:1 and especially starting with 1:26.
photo
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
11:11 PM on 10/07/2010
Again, 123, you are looking BACK THROUGH THE LENS OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT to see if you can find any words which point to it.

While some of the words may show up, they are NOT the same concepts as those of a philosophy that began to be developed several centuries AFTER the Bible was written.

You are also seeing them because you WANT to see them.

But they are just not there.

Not that there is anything BAD in this. You just have two sets of ideas. Both have strong points and weak ones.

Also, remember the ancient world was VERY different from our modern one.

Science (which some would argue was part of the Enlightenment movement) had not even been conceived at that time.

If you are going to understand the Bible, you have to begin by understanding the world its writers lived in -- and understand that it is VERY different from the world in which we live today.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:01 PM on 10/07/2010
The Founders all grew up around the Bible (see huffpo story above). Somehow they completely ignored all that background when they wrote the Founding documents?

Among the Founders were men who had the daily habit of reading the Bible, both Jews and Christians. Remember this was before electronics or broadcasting. The only mass media was very short newspapers.

And they did not stop their daily habits during the war of independence. Or during the drafting of the founding documents.

Yes, yes, yes, of course they used philosophy and enlightenment. They also used the Bible.
photo
jwcmass
I dream of things that never were and ask Why not
11:21 PM on 10/07/2010
Yes they used the Bible, but NOT in establishing this nation.

For one thing, they knew enough history to know that Christians interpret the BIble in different ways.

And well they were aware of the wars of religion (among Christians) which tore Europe apart, and they wanted to spare that same fate occurring in America.

Hence the REVOLUTIONARY idea of Separation (the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses). That too was something NEW (at least in Western Civilization).

Prior to that -- in virtually EVERY European nation (or state, kingdom, --however you want to describe it) the people had little choice but to follow the MONARCH in the matter of religion, and God help those who dissented.

Even in the Colonies, some were not tolerant of religious dissent. I live in a Commonwealth that is famous for that. IN THE 17th Century. -- By the 18th Century, things were beginning to change.

And the America of 1787 was VERY different of the America of say 1692-3 (the time of the Essex County -- where I live --- witch hysteria, better, but more inaccurately known as the Salem Witch hysteria (which didn't even begin in Salem -- but in Salem Village, which is now known as the town of Danvers). And I think that historical event helped to play a role in the development of the idea of separation of church and state.