Antimatter's tags:

Several Christian posters here at SoulCast have insisted that the United States of America was founded on Christian principles. I find this claim untenable. For example, only three of the Ten Commandments are codified under U.S. Law. Murder, theft, and perjury are illegal. On the other hand, the freedom of religion guaranteed by our Bill of Rights appears diametrically opposed to the first two or three commandments (depending on the version you use), and desire for a neighbor’s property forms the cornerstone of capitalism and free market economic theory. Despite all this, Christians still insist that a careful examination of our nation’s founders and early documents will reveal that our nation was built upon Biblical principles.

I doubted this, but I really didn’t have the energy to investigate it at the time. I later discovered the Treaty of Tripoli, a peace agreement with a Muslim nation on the north African coast that was actively pirating our Mediterranean shipping lanes. The eleventh article of that treaty, seeking to assure the Bey that the United States was not in the practice of waging religious wars against Muslim nations, stated the following:

“The Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.”

The treaty was signed on January 3, 1797, and sent home for ratification by the Senate, as required by our Constitution. The treaty was read aloud on the floor of the Senate on May 29. The treaty was ratified by unanimous vote on June 7 and signed by President John Adams into law on June 10, 1797. The entire text of the treaty was printed in at least two Philadelphia newspapers and at least one in New York, generating no public controversy whatsoever.

Our founding fathers were mostly deists, arguably the intellectual equivalent of modern atheists in the days before Darwin. The Constitution was influenced more by Montesquieu, John Locke, and the Magna Carta by anything in the Bible.



del.icio.us Digg reddit StumbleUpon

Comments

  • bloc said on Sep 19, 2007....
    "For example, only three of the Ten Commandments are codified under U.S. Law. Murder, theft, and perjury are illegal. On the other hand, the freedom of religion guaranteed by our Bill of Rights appears diametrically opposed to the first two or three commandments (depending on the version you use), and desire for a neighbor’s property forms the cornerstone of capitalism and [American] economic theory."

    This is conclusive imho!
  • muckpar said on Sep 20, 2007....

      Your assertion that deists (18th century) would be an aetheist today does not hold water with me.  Deists believed in God, aetheists do not. I think we need to go back and research the religious values of the founders before we draw a conclusion either way. 

    Note:  I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God.................................

  • Antimatter said on Sep 20, 2007....

    Deists do not believe in the same sort of god as Christians. The deist’s god never interacts with humanity at all. His only role was to create everything. Before we had any scientific explanation for the formation of the universe, planets, or life, god was the best explanation available. Today, deists are practically non-existant. The intellectual segments of the population that were then deists are now overwhelmingly agnostic and atheist.

    The phrase “under god” was added to our pledge of allegiance on June 14, 1954, almost two months after Congress added “in god we trust” to our currency.

  • thenack said on Sep 20, 2007....

    Anti, I think it is a good comparason, deist, atheist.

    The deist believed in something, but practically it had no influence on his life. But to answer BIG QUESTIONS, he had to say something. How did life begin? god created it.

    Thencame our lying friend Darwin, so he gave a different excuse, and atheists latched on. They could still worship themselves and make their own rules, but now they had a different answer for all the BIG QUESTIONS

    Its a good way to look at it in my opinion

  • bloc said on Sep 20, 2007....
    @thenack
    You make these weird assertions about evolution which I don't understand. Unfortunately you never explain them in any detail.
  • Antimatter said on Sep 20, 2007....

    Besides evolution, those are some odd assertions about atheists. I worship myself and make my own rules? That’s news to me! Darwin was a creationist when he left for the Galápagos Islands, so why would he be “giving excuses?” He proposed evolution by natural selection because it was clearly evident after observing the wildlife surviving the harsh conditions of the archipelago.

  • silverwhisper said on Sep 20, 2007....
    personally, i feel that the idea of this nation having christian base assumptions to be a valid one, but criminalizing theft, murder and perjury are not IMHO a reflection of christian values specifically so much as they are absolutely fundamental to any society that wishes to value the rule of law. the rule of law is necessary for any government, IMV.

    this IMHO is merely a case where certain christian values happen to overlap w/ other things that are also good.

    ed
  • shiningstar said on Sep 21, 2007....
    Since these highly enlightened leaders left out rights for women,  children and people of color one must assume that their "Christian" teachings left those things out of their teachings too. Which they do/did. They upheld and decreed rights only for their own white male selves. They kept humans as their own personal slaves. (Workers without pay or human rights)Surely they must be looked up to??But the written words in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the highest example of humans trying to go forward towards an IDEA of human rights for all people.  Perhaps if the writers had lived it instead of just writing about it it would have grown into a livable way of life sooner.--From all I have personally read about them the writers had their religious views but saw humanity as above the narrow restrictions that religions gave to them.Peace
  • bloc said on Sep 21, 2007....
    "They upheld and decreed rights only for their own white male selves."

    Your forgot the land owning part. Poor white men had no rights either!
  • shiningstar said on Sep 21, 2007....
    Well Bloc there are a lot of more things I could have said.  Ha-Ha.They go to prove it is a lot easier to talk the talk than to walk the walk.Ideals on paper are not ideals that they lived even though they did take care of their own selves first.--I believe that the founders ran away from religion because it was unjust but did not know how to live with out it.
  • Antimatter said on Sep 21, 2007....
    Jefferson, despite being a slave owner himself, was an outspoken opponent of slavery. He thought it was immoral and should be abolished. Slavery was a compromise without which the Constitution would never have been ratified—a compromise that would return with a vengeance to bite us in the arse in 1861.
  • D6fer said on Sep 22, 2007....
    Why is it when the subject of slavery is brought up, that it is only mentioned that whites owned blacks? When in fact it was blacks that captured and sold other blacks, not to mention those that lived here and owned slaves themselves. There was slavery amongst the indian tribes as well.
  • shiningstar said on Sep 22, 2007....
    D6fer. That is a very good question.  I have read many historical books about the black tribes in Africa and other places selling their black enemies to the slave runners to get rid of them. There is a lot more to the story than just white man and slaves.  It is amazing to me that religious ministers preached from their pulpits than the black race were animals with no souls and yet the present black race is more into religion than the whites.  ---Also Antimatter what you posted is correct but if one turns that around a bit it could be said that one is an out spoken opponent of child molestors,  murders or theives and should be abolished but it is all right to keep on doing it?? See what I mean? Peace
  • bloc said on Sep 22, 2007....
    @shining
    you are right, but it's also important to see that they had the foresight to make the constitution and bill of rights general. I think many of them knew it was wrong and worded those documents accordingly (subtly enough that they could pass it), but couldn't give up something that made their lives easier. We see the same thing today, but it's not for anything as bad as slavery.
  • shiningstar said on Sep 22, 2007....
    I kinda agree on that bloc but maybe in some ways what they do to the people economically is as bad or worse than what happened to just a segment of the population.  It is easy to talk many thing and get elected but when it is just talk and things do not get done(like min. wage) it hurts everyone.Peace
  • bloc said on Sep 22, 2007....
    I agree with you, and wasn't defending their actions. However, I'm supremely glad that lived up to their ideals when codifying Constitution, the basis for our society, It was, after all, their words that lead to many of the social advances in our society. People aren't perfect which is why we have to adamantly remind ourselves of the ideals we should strive for. It's why I post so often on the topic of human rights and liberty.
  • kelly said on Sep 23, 2007....
    Fascinating historical digging, Antimatter. Did you run across that bit by accident or were you searching it out somehow? It seems incontrovertible evidence to me. Perhaps we could eventually lay all this nonsense to rest and get on with building a nation for everyone, not just one particular sect.
  • Antimatter said on Sep 23, 2007....
    I came across it by accident, in fact.
  • shiningstar said on Sep 23, 2007....
    It makes one wonder if in order to have equal rights for all do we need representation for  all?  I heard or read that Iraq must have all of it's people represented in government and would have people from every ethnic group and wonder if that is what is coming to America?  After all how can every group of people be represented if they have no voice in government?
  • cotteralladams3 said on Sep 24, 2007....
    Who can define Christian principles?  If one follows Unitarianism, it is different from Catholicism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostalism and other faiths. I harbor no anger or hate against anyone.  Lately, there has been a lot of bashing against Mormons.  Perhaps I am not about to give up the beer and coffee anytime soon, but to dislike them for their views on the family is unfair.  It is also wrong to make false accusations of racism and intolerance. 'Hate the sin, not the sinner' may not be P.C. but it isn't intolerant.  As for polygamy, it is very rare and not exclusive to Mormons who gave up these beliefs a long time ago and simply view it as an option in extreme circumstances, not an ideal.  Polygamy exists in Islam and many polytheist faiths.
  • bloc said on Sep 24, 2007....
    The Mormon Church had a ban against black priests until 1978. People can draw their own conclusions, but that is a fact.

    I grew up close to a mormon family and many of them were good friends of mine. They were some of the nicest and most tolerant people I've known, but the Mormon Churches history is what it is.
  • shiningstar said on Sep 25, 2007....
    Any religion is a closed belief system.  They have a book of beliefs and rules and agree to live by them.  So no matter what changes around them or how it is working for themselves or the world they are bound to their creation.  Closed systems are not good for the people and do not work for the common good.  The internet ,  among other things,  is a perfect example of how much better the people are served when things are free flowiing and open.Our forefathers opened up a new page in history when the wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  This had never been done before and was dedicated to a new and better ideal of being and living for the masses.Peace
  • bloc said on Sep 25, 2007....
    @shining
    I'm not sure i agree with your definition of religion. All are not closed belief systems, for example zen buddhism does not appear to be a closed belief system.
  • shiningstar said on Sep 25, 2007....
    Closed meaning they had defined their beliefs and have created rules to live by,  agree on them and are not willing to enlarge them with any new or different information.Peace
  • bloc said on Sep 26, 2007....
    and, again, all religions do not fit that definition. In fact, even christianity has "enlarged" their beliefs with new information. They no longer believe the earth is flat. However, I agree that Christianity is essentially a closed belief system, but all religions aren't. Again, zen buddhism is a good example. Pantheism is another.
  • cotteralladams3 said on Oct 13, 2007....
    As long as people vote Republican, this is what they'll get.
  • shiningstar said on Oct 14, 2007....

    Going back to the orginal question about America being a "Christian" nation.  Would that not suggest that all Americans are Christians?  And to take it one step further would that not infer that all accept Jesus as their personal saviour and believe that he died for their sins?  Then to go another step does that then mean that everyone else that does not believe that was is (a) not an American (b) not physically here at all (c) doesn't exist (d) or going to be done away with for not believing those things?Peace

  • bloc said on Oct 14, 2007....
    some of the early American towns, prior to the revolutionary war, not only required their inhabitants to be Christian, they required them to be a specific type of Christian. They would be punished, including exile, if they didn't submit. 
  • shiningstar said on Oct 15, 2007....
    Well of course bloc it is just like the Inqusition.  If they had not have killed every one that opposed Christianity we would never have heard of it.  Is suppose we would all be Muslims??Peace

Comment on "The United States, a Christian Nation?"


(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Comment Anonymously

Not to be mistaken for the Flaky Cafe'!!!

Mysticism:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism


Mysticism (my trusty Webster's New World dictionary):

The doctrine or beliefs of mystics; specif., t...
Being on this site and meet people of various ethnic background and different beliefs....
Simply, the answer is NO! It doesn't jibe with the rudimentary doctrines of Jesus or even our own sense of morality. Who can condemn a newborn baby for sin? Who can say Adam condemned us all by sinning? It's a crazy concept!...
WHAT'S IN MY HEART...
RIDING OUT THE STORMS...