"The U.S. a Christian Nation? Not According to the" Topic

… Founders!

"George Washington may have said it best, if not first: "Religious controversies are always more productive of acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause." To prevent such controversies, Washington ordered Continental Army commanders "to protect and support the free exercise…and undisturbed enjoyment of…religious matters."

But former attorney general Jefferson ["Jeff"] Beauregard Sessions, III, of Alabama, contends that Washington's views were "directly contrary to the founding of our country." And Vice-President Michael Richard Pence, a fervent church-goer who publicly proclaims his Christian beliefs whenever he can, insists the United States was "founded as a Christian nation."

Pence and Sessions are but two prominent Americans in and out of politics today who continue refueling a centuries-old controversy over the role of religion in American life…"

Main page

link

Armand

The author is very disingenuous. He takes quotes out of context and ignores facts that don't agree with his conclusion.

+1 Dn Jackson.

The US was founded on Christian principles.
The government does not endorse a specific religion.

The majority of people in the USA self-identify as Christian.

So you may or may not choose to define the US as a Christian nation depending on what outcome you want. I believe the US is a Christian nation.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

Ah, politics and religion, this thread will prove to be interesting 🤔. Someone pass the popcorn 🍿…………

I didn't see politics mentioned?

The United States is, and was founded as a secular nation with a secular government.

The Founders were children of The Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. And those were the principles upon which the nation was founded.

The author is very disingenuous. He takes quotes out of context and ignores facts that don't agree with his conclusion.

Could you put the subject quotes in context and cite examples of 'ignored' facts?

This again? The us is a secular state but the nation was then almost entirely Christian. Moreover, the Great Awakening of the 1740s and 1750s was a huge influence on the Revolution. Equally so with the Enlightenment.

Careful definitions are essential here

I'm away from home just now but will later quote Calvin Coolidge, speaking on the Declaration, as to the role of the Awakening.

Washington was Anglican. link

I didn't know Washington was an avid fisherman. What? Oh, Anglican. Never mind. H

Calvin Coolidge speaking on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Declaration:

But if these truths to which the Declaration refers have not before been adopted in their combined entirely by national authority, it is a fact that they had been long pondered and often expressed in political speculation. It is generally assumed that French thought had some effect upon our public mind during Revolutionary days. This may have been true. But the principles of our Declaration had been under discussion in the Colonies for nearly two generations before the advent of the French political philosophy that characterized the middle of the eighteenth century. In fact, they come from an earlier date. A very positive echo of what the Dutch had done in 1581, and what the English were preparing to do, appears in the assertion of the Rev. Thomas Hooker, of Connecticut, as early as 1638, when he said in a sermon before the General Court that--

The foundation of authority is laid in the free consent of the people.
The choice of public magistrates belongs to the people by God's own allowance.

This doctrine found wide acceptance among the nonconformist clergy who later made up the Congregational Church. The great apostle of this movement was the Rev. John Wise, of Massachusetts. He was one of the leaders of the revolt against the royal governor Andros in 1687, for which he suffered imprisonment. He was a liberal in ecclesiastical controversies. He appears to have been familiar with the writings of the political scientist, Samuel Pufendorf, who was born in Saxony in 1632. Wise published a treatise entitled "The Church's Quarrel Espoused" in 1710, which was amplified in another publication in 1717. In it he dealt with the principles of civil government. His works were reprinted in 1772 and have been declared to have been nothing less than a textbook of liberty for our Revolutionary fathers.

While the written word was the foundation, it is apparent that the spoken word was the vehicle for convincing the people. This came with great force and wide range from the successors of Hooker and Wise. It was carried on with a missionary spirit which did not fail to reach the Scotch-Irish of North Carolina, showing its influence by significantly making that Colony the first to give instructions to its delegates looking to independence. This preaching reached the neighborhood of Thomas Jefferson, who acknowledged that his "best ideas of democracy" had been secured at church meetings.

That these ideas were prevalent in Virginia is further revealed by the Declaration of Rights, which was prepared by George Mason and presented to the general assembly on May 27, 1776. This document asserted popular sovereignty and inherent natural rights, but confined the doctrine of equality to the assertion that "All men are created equally free and independent." It can scarcely be imagined that Jefferson was unacquainted with what had been done in his own Commonwealth of Virginia when he took up the task of drafting the Declaration of Independence. But these thoughts can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, "Every man must be acknowledged equal to very man." Again, "The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth * * *."

And again, "For as they have a power every man in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall determine." And still again, "Democracy is Christ's government in church and state." Here was the doctrine of equality, popular sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just as we have the principle of the consent of the governed state by Hooker as early as 1638.

When we take all these circumstances into consideration, it is but natural that the first paragraph of the Declaration of Independence should open with a reference to Nature's God and should close in the final paragraphs with an appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world and an assertion of a firm reliance on Divine Providence. Coming from these sources, having as it did this background, it is no wonder that Samuel Adams could say "The people seem to recognize this resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven."

No one can examine this record and escape the conclusion that in the great outline of its principles the Declaration was the result of the religious teachings of the preceding period. The profound philosophy which Jonathan Edwards applied to theology, the popular preaching of George Whitefield, had aroused the thought and stirred the people of the Colonies in preparation for this great event. No doubt the speculations which had been going on in England, and especially on the Continent, lent their influence to the general sentiment of the times. Of course, the world is always influenced by all the experience and all the thought of the past. But when we come to a contemplation of the immediate conception of the principles of human relationship which went into the Declaration of Independence we are not required to extend our search beyond our own shores. They are found in the texts, the sermons, and the writings of the early colonial clergy who were earnestly undertaking to instruct their congregations in the great mystery of how to live. They preached equality because they believed in the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man. They justified freedom by the text that we are all created in the divine image, all partakers of the divine spirit.

Placing every man on a plane where he acknowledged no superiors, where no one possessed any right to rule over him, he must inevitably choose his own rulers through a system of self-government. This was their theory of democracy. In those days such doctrines would scarcely have been permitted to flourish and spread in any other country. This was the purpose which the fathers cherished. In order that they might have freedom to express these thoughts and opportunity to put them into action, whole congregations with their pastors had migrated to the Colonies. These great truths were in the air that our people breathed. Whatever else we may say of it, the Declaration of Independence was profoundly American.

If this apprehension of the facts be correct, and the documentary evidence would appear to verify it, then certain conclusions are bound to follow. A spring will cease to flow if its source be dried up; a tree will wither if it roots be destroyed. In its main features the Declaration of Independence is a great spiritual document. It is a declaration not of material but of spiritual conceptions. Equality, liberty, popular sovereignty, the rights of man – these are not elements which we can see and touch. They are ideals. They have their source and their roots in the religious convictions. They belong to the unseen world. Unless the faith of the American people in these religious convictions is to endure, the principles of our Declaration will perish. We can not continue to enjoy the result if we neglect and abandon the cause.

If you want to see the effect of unalloyed Enlightenment political thought, see the disastrous French Revolution. There were certainly Enlightenment elements in the American Revolution, but they were tempered, thank God, by the Christian ones.

Please cite any credible references where 'Enlightenment elements' were 'tempered…by the Christian ones.'

Comparing the American and French Revolutions is difficult. The backgrounds and 'traditions' of the two peoples were quite different. The American colonists already had representative government as well as judicial and legal traditions solidified. Further, Great Britains' 'benign neglect' of the colonies further solidified their traditions and backgrounds.

The French were under a monarchy and the Estates General had not met for quite some time. Further, the three estates of the populace was quite distinct and France was an absolute monarchy. They had no template for successful democratic (for lack of a better term) government and their traditions and experiences were quite different from the American colonists.

And as the French Revolution did lead to lasting reforms, especially under Napoleon, it was not a 'total disaster.'

And don't forget the fighting in the Hudson Valley and in the South which pitted loyalist Americans against the 'rebels.'

For starters, we must distinguish the English Enlightenment from the French one. John Locke in particular was well grounded in a universal moral law, though he held it to be confirmed by universal experience ("self-evident truths" such as the Golden Rule) as much as by any revelation. Pretty much nobody in America sees the church as the ENEMY, as was the case in France. The French Revolution was not just godless but aggressively ANTI-religion -- Robespierre's "cult of the supreme being" and all that. Jefferson and Franklin were both Francophiles, but they also were quite familiar with the Awakening and neither saw it as a foe. The French influence IS visible in Federalist #10 etc in the view of factions (as opposing Rousseau's "General Will") and the Founders' disapproval of parties.

The Awakening was very broadly based, a mass popular movement, and it challenged accepted authority, both religious and ultimately political. The Enlightenment in America was a rich mans hobby. The first tempered the second.

The French . . . had no template for successful democratic (for lack of a better term) government and their traditions and experiences were quite different from the American colonists.

BINGO! Exactly right. And why did the Americans have such a template? It was the 17th century struggles between king and parliament AND between Puritans and Anglicans, AND the experiences of the colonies (often the losers from the British conflicts) culminating in the Awakening. THAT is why the American Revolution was successful where the French was not.

I cannot find it online, which is sad, but Irving Kristol's great 1976 speech/essay bears looking:

"The Amercian Revolution as a Successful revolution"

Successful because, first, its leaders all died in bed at an advanced age! Quite a contrast with the french!

And because they did not try to change everything all at once. It was a very conservative revolution (yes, we know that seems contradictory). The reason they didn't have to reform society, but merely government, was (broadly) the Anglican revolutions on both sides of the Atlantic during the previous century. And the Awakening was one of the greatest of those revolutions, both in impact on thought and in terms of sheer numbers.

The French Revolution was successful in that they completely changed French society and government which was solidified by Napoleon in the 1799 coup and resulting reform period.

And even though Napoleon's reign ended in defeat and exile, his reforms remained in government and society.

I think you are conflating "change" with reform. France hasn't had a stable government since. And the immediate result of Bonaparte was a military dictatorship and twenty years of bloody war. No doubt unavoidable, in the European context, I agree. I have no strong feelings either way about Napoleon, but the British were very fortunate that THEY had only Cromwell, sort of half a Bonaparte, and God blessed the US with George Washington whose greatness lies first and most in NOT BEING either Cromwell nor Napoleon.

Thanks!

Armand

Armand-Please do not turn the AWI board into the toxic dump on modern American politics that the ACW board is becoming. The U.S. was founded as a Christian nation-TRUE. The U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation-ALSO TRUE. It all comes down to how we define things.

Bill, thanks, I agree.

The U.S. was founded as a Christian nation-TRUE. The U.S. was not founded as a Christian nation-ALSO TRUE.

The US cannot be both at the same time.

"The US cannot be both at the same time."

Of course it can. It was founded on Christian principles by Christian men for a Christian population. But one Christian principle is that people should be forced to worship Christ. And so the government does not force people to be of one religion, does not have a state sponsored religion and respects the rights of religious minorities.

Despite the fact that several states had official religions, all Christian.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

"The Founders were children of The Enlightenment and the Age of Reason. And those were the principles upon which the nation was founded."

True.

The Enlightment and the Age of Reason are thoroughly and completely Christian. They could not and would not have existed without the advent of Jesus Christ.

Now, they are a heresy. A particularly evil and vile one.

Joe Collins

For the Age of Reason:

link

For the Enlightenment:

link

Now, they are a heresy. A particularly evil and vile one.

Do you have examples and citations for the above?

‘But one Christian principle is that people should be forced to worship Christ.‘

Um, what now? Don't confuse human political practice with Christian belief.

Can you quote a New Testament passage that declares this?

I think you are conflating "change" with reform. France hasn't had a stable government since.

No.

Definition of ‘reform':

‘make changes in something, typically a social, political, or economic institution or practice, in order to improve it.'

After Napoleon came to power in late 1799 he began a series of reforms that touched nearly every aspect of French lives: The Code Civile, education, religion, law, and rooting out corruption in the government and the army, as well as the reestablishment of law and order throughout France. Among the European heads of state he was a progressive, the others being reactionaries whom the Revolution scared them to death.

And the immediate result of Bonaparte was a military dictatorship and twenty years of bloody war.

Napoleon was neither a military dictator nor a tyrant. He governed by the rule of law, and he governed as a civil head of state. The overwhelming majority of his ministers and officials were civilians, and he set up a system to train civil servants. The army was separate from the civil government. An excellent article by Thierry Lentz definitely demonstrates that Napoleon was not a military dictator.

See: link

The Revolutionary Wars began in 1792. Napoleon was an artillery captain at the time and stayed loyal to France. He didn't begin the wars but he did bring them to a successful conclusion in with the Treaty of Amiens with England in early 1802.

The Napoleonic Wars proper began the next year when Great Britain broke the treaty and again began financing the major European powers, who were short of money or bankrupt, to fight the French.

Most of these wars were not begun by Napoleon with the exception of Spain and Russia. Austria was the aggressor in 1805 and 1809. Prussia was the aggressor in 1806. Russia joined with Austria in 1805 and the Prussians in 1806.

The main problem in Europe was twofold: All of the major powers were expanding empires and the nations allied against France and Napoleon were afraid of Napoleon and it was not in their collective interest for him to remain the French head of state.

France hasn't had a stable government since.

That is both a sweeping statement and an inaccurate one.

If you would like a listing of recommended authors and books for the Napoleonic period I would be more than happy to either post them or send them to you.

The author is an accomplished writer and has sterling credentials. He has a reputation to protect among other scholars and therefore the idea that he is disingenuous about extent information is preposterous.

The Enlightment and the Age of Reason are thoroughly and completely Christian.

Hunh?

Of course it can. It was founded on Christian principles by Christian men for a Christian population. But one Christian principle is that people should be forced to worship Christ. And so the government does not force people to be of one religion, does not have a state sponsored religion and respects the rights of religious minorities.

It was religious minorities who demanded that there be no state religion and now those same religious minorities (Now, no longer minorities) are leading the charge to say the country was always meant to be Christian. This is "disingenuous" mass hysteria fueled by nothing more than a desire to will it into being.

If you want to see the effect of unalloyed Enlightenment political thought, see the disastrous French Revolution. There were certainly Enlightenment elements in the American Revolution, but they were tempered, thank God, by the Christian ones.

Pure propaganda.

And the immediate result of Bonaparte was a military dictatorship and twenty years of bloody war.

Is this similar to CSA secession resulting in 4 years of bloody war?

Reason is fundamental to Christianity (and to Judaism), and of course Newton was thoroughly Christian. So Joe is correct. But great evil has been done in the name of Reason; see Robespierre.

I think Bunkermeister omitted a "not".

Protestant Christianity stresses the individual decision, so no compulsion. The earlier church DID sometimes "compel them to come in." American Protestantism invented modern missionary efforts to alien cultures; see David Brainerd (Jonathan Edwards almost son-in-law) and Jerusha Edwards and the missions to the Indians.

So is this parable about choice or compulsion? Yes.

(And note the humor: men who buy fields without seeing them (Florida swamp!) or oxen without trying them out.)

Luke 14: The Parable of the Great Banquet

15 When one of those at the table with him heard this, he said to Jesus, "Blessed is the one who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God."

16 Jesus replied: "A certain man was preparing a great banquet and invited many guests. 17 At the time of the banquet he sent his servant to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, for everything is now ready.'

18 "But they all alike began to make excuses. The first said, ‘I have just bought a field, and I must go and see it. Please excuse me.'

19 "Another said, ‘I have just bought five yoke of oxen, and I'm on my way to try them out. Please excuse me.'

20 "Still another said, ‘I just got married, so I can't come.'

21 "The servant came back and reported this to his master. Then the owner of the house became angry and ordered his servant, ‘Go out quickly into the streets and alleys of the town and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind and the lame.'

22 "‘Sir,' the servant said, ‘what you ordered has been done, but there is still room.'

23 "Then the master told his servant, ‘Go out to the roads and country lanes and compel them to come in, so that my house will be full. 24 I tell you, not one of those who were invited will get a taste of my banquet.'"

Reason is fundamental to Christianity…

What about faith?

Reason:

(1)a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

(2) the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic.

Faith:

(1) strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

(2) complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

The US was founded on Christian principles.

And which 'Christian principles' would those be?

Kevin, yes, except that you cannot prove there is such a thing as proof, not without fallaciously assuming the conclusion. Is it reasonable to have faith in Reason?

Evidence, and Reason itself, takes us only just so far. Faith is not indifferent to evidence, but deals with areas beyond any natural (experiential) data. Faith in a future often is based on experience in the past -- which CAN be misleading, as it is what con men do. But when I have decades of direct experience of the faithfulness of someone, it would take an almost impossible amount of evidence to the contrary to change my mind. Trust is very similar to faith.

I'm not sure what heresy Joe is referring to, but the pretend antagonism of Christianity and science is surely one.

Which Christian principles? Go back up and read the Calvin Coolidge quote.

A relevant portion:

But these thoughts can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was writing in 1710. He said, "Every man must be acknowledged equal to very man." Again, "The end of all good government is to cultivate humanity and promote the happiness of all and the good of every man in all his rights, his life, liberty, estate, honor, and so forth * * *."

And again, "For as they have a power every man in his natural state, so upon combination they can and do bequeath this power to others and settle it according as their united discretion shall determine." And still again, "Democracy is Christ's government in church and state." Here was the doctrine of equality, popular sovereignty, and the substance of the theory of inalienable rights clearly asserted by Wise at the opening of the eighteenth century, just as we have the principle of the consent of the governed state by Hooker as early as 1638.

"Democracy is Christ's government in church and state."

'Render to Caesar…'

'Christ's government' is a kingdom, not a democracy. There certainly isn't any voting for who's in charge…

Further, I wasn't aware that Coolidge was a theologian…

That all you got? Coolidge is quoting Hooker and Wise, who WERE theologians.

The kingdom of God is/will be a monarchy, indeed, but now, on earth, "we have no king but Jesus." Democracy is based on the fundamental equality of men (humans) as joint bearers of imago dei.

The difference between now and the eschaton is similarly expressed in the twin images (within a few sentences of each other) of the Church as the broken Body of Christ and as the perfect Bride of Christ. The church cannot NOW be perfect because it has John McBride in it. But it WILL be perfect, and so shall I.

So democracy now, monarchy when the King returns.

To which 'Church' do you refer? If it is to the Christian church, then there isn't one Christian church, but a plethora of Protestant denominations, one Roman Catholic Church, and one Greek Orthodox Church.

The Enlightment was just Christianity with a misplaced trust in Greek thought. The late Joseph Ratzinger writes about this extensively… it is a current danger in the Catholic Church (and Protestant as well). The roots of this are deep- seen in Augustine, Tertullian and Justin Martyr.

The ascendancy and replacement of God with reason was the heresy. The fruits of it are bitter indeed.

The counter to this made things worse… Rousseau. The worship of self instead of pure reason. But that is another discussion.

So, the Enlightenment was Christian, but flawed… as was our Founding.

Joe Collins

There is only one church. It is God's church.

From a human perspective, all of those denominations (RC, Orthodox, Protestant) with all of their subgroups (Baptist, Presbyterian, etc) are incomplete and imperfect. We shall see the truth, the Real, soon enough, and face to face. In the meantime we debate and hopefully refrain from killing each other.

So when I say ThE CHURCH I mean all of them in part and none of them completely.

Joe, yes, and of course ny human endeavor is flawed.

doc

I am getting this vibe from you that the American Revolution was some sort of neat, petite affair while the French Revolution was some sort of Apocalypse. Is that what you are suggesting?

Yes, the French Revolution was an apocalypse. The Reign of Terror, based on Rousseau's idea of the General Will, was the first example of guilt by identity, and a direct precursor of the Holocaust. See the Law of Suspects.

The American Revolution was relatively bloodless (not the war, of course) and relatively restrained. But hardly neat or petite. It lasted, arguably, from 1765 until 1789 or even 1801 (the first peaceful transfer of power). Its effects were often subtle but widely felt, including outside the thirteen states.

Where is the key to the Bastille? Do you know?

The key to the Bastille is at Mount Vernon. It was given to George Washington by Lafayette.

Definitions of Apocalypse:

1: one of the Jewish and Christian writings of 200 b.c. to a.d. 150 marked by pseudonymity, symbolic imagery, and the expectation of an imminent cosmic cataclysm in which God destroys the ruling powers of evil and raises the righteous to life in a messianic kingdom.

2a: something viewed as a prophetic revelation

b: ARMAGEDDON

3a: a large, disastrous fire : INFERNO
Most foresters agree that small, "prescribed" burns, carefully controlled, are essential to prevent the larger apocalypse.

b: a great disaster

The French Revolution was a disaster for the French monarchy and the Royalists. That's what happens when a people are oppressed and treated badly for the benefit of a relative few for centuries. Napoleon was actually the first French ruler who actually cared whether the people were fed or not.

The French Revolution definitely got out of hand and the executions and murder were wrong which is why there was a backlash to it and those who promulgated the Terror themselves 'sneezed in the basket' of the guillotine.

However, the reforms and betterment of the lot of the French people were a definite advantage gained by the Revolution. The political and social reforms began by the revolutionaries and solidified and improved by Napoleon improved the nation.

However, labeling it an 'apocalypse' is inaccurate and ahistorical. Further, making an analogy between the French Revolution and the Holocaust is incorrect.

Many of the injustices caused by the Revolution were corrected by Napoleon after he became First Consul.

The fanatics who were responsible for the Terror are a danger in any country and they cannot be allowed to take over any government. Fanatics of any ilk are a danger in any national, state, or local government. They certainly are not in favor of democracy.

There is only one church. It is God's church.

On that point we definitely disagree.

"Why are you going to kill me? What have I done?"
"Why, you haven't DONE anything, my good sir. We are killing you for what you ARE."

This applies with equal force to the Reign of Terror and to the Holocaust. It is the abandonment of the idea of individual guilt or innocence, replacing that with group identity, and it springs directly from the philosophy of Rousseau (the General Will) as applied by Robespierre and the Jacobins.

There is a direct link between the Reign of Terror and the Holocaust.

So, Kevin, what is YOUR answer to which church? Mine is all of them and none of them. If the answer is only from a human perspective, it sort of misses the whole point.

There is a direct link between the Reign of Terror and the Holocaust.

Perhaps you could demonstrate what that is?