# Help, please...Is this a Christian Nation? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 11, 2004, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403 "2004-04-11T01:07:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Spavined\_Gelding](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/958977/32.png) [@Spavined\_Gelding](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spavined_Gelding)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2004, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/61 "2004-04-11T21:00:02Z")
The people who are out beating the bushes for the “Christian Nation” theory have already made up their minds and are not about to be dissuaded form the position that the actual hand of God the Father Almighty guided T. Jefferson’s hand as he drafter the Great Deceleration and that the Holy Spirit whispered in the ears of the men at the constitutional convention. They have an agenda. That agenda is that (1) everybody ought to think and believe just like I do and those that don’t should be expelled or held to an inferior position until they do, and (2) the central government ought to give me money. The simple fact is that in the early 17th Century when this country was first settled and in the late 18th Century when this country was organized almost all the settlers and almost all the organizers were Western Europeans. If they were Christians (which they certainly were) it was because their roots were in a territory where either Roman Catholicism, some variety of Calvinism or some brand of Lutheranism was dominant. It was not until the mid-Nineteenth Century that the US started to see any number of immigrants who were not North European Protestants and they scared the hell out of the locals. See, for example the Know Nothing Nativeist party. Even today the bulk of Western Europeans are nominal Christians and in not a few European countries the local dominant church is to one extent or another subsidized by the central government. The genius or the founders was that, despite their European-Christian sources, they were able to look at the then recent history of Europe and the history of the American colonies and make a deliberate and calculated decision that the impulse to unite priest and policeman was not going to prevail here. The “Christian Nation” types, either intentionally or not, seek to make the priest a policeman and the policeman a priest. Not a good idea. I’m not much persuaded by quotes from the founders–especially quotes lacking context. I am persuaded by history. Remember that the English Civil War and its continuation in the Highland Uprisings and Cromwell’s Commonwealth were almost current events for the men who organized this country. The Battle of Colloden preceded the “shot heard round the world” by a mere 30 years. ---
**Author:** ![htns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ba8739/32.png) [@htns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/htns)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2004, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/62 "2004-04-11T22:03:19Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Anyone want in on this? I’m having an email debate with someone who is insisting to me that the United States is a “Christian Nation”. He does not mean there are a lot of Christians, he means that it is hunky dory for the president and the government to talk about Christianity and support Christianity specifically as, well, the state religion, because the government was “founded on Christian principles, and we are a Christian Nation.” N ot that people have to be Christian, just that we all have to put up with the idea that our govt. is supposedly “Christian”. I asked him to provide examples of what principles we were founded upon that are exclusive to Christianity, vs. principles that appear in some form in every major and most of the minor religions of the world, as well as among decent people everywhere who are not religious. > > There’s more, and I’m working on it, but I wanted to throw this into the ring for my favorite debaters (and some of the smartest people I’ve ever met) to take a swipe at… thanks in advance. Ask him to show you from the Bible where God ever ordained a Constitutional Republic with free elections, freedom of speech / religion / press, and the right to a trial by jury. Can’t do it? So much for the idea of America being a Christian nation. ---
**Author:** ![psiclone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a6a055/32.png) [@psiclone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psiclone)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2004, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/63 "2004-04-11T22:13:53Z")
> [@Zagadka](#): > > Oh, I will. That isn’t a sin to everyone, you know. > > Christians have the funniest insults. It is like being in junior high again. O\_o Still more ad hominem arguments from the master of same. Anytime you care to address the substance of my postings, as opposed to nit-picking sentence structure and inserting revisionist fiction, let me know. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2004, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/64 "2004-04-11T22:50:26Z")
> [@htns](#): > > Ask him to show you from the Bible where God ever ordained a Constitutional Republic with free elections, freedom of speech / religion / press, and the right to a trial by jury. > > Can’t do it? So much for the idea of America being a Christian nation. This post is an appropriate springboard to point out that we are apparently having two divergent conversations in this thread deriving from the OP. Re the more general historical question of whether the US is a “Christian Nation” in the sense of it’s origin documents and constitution, the answer is “yes” in terms of the prominent place that the value of the individual, and the rights of the individual by extension, within the polity are assigned. The notion of the intrinsic value of the political individual is directly linked to the New Testament Christian worldview of the intrinsic value of the sacred individual. The aforesaid “Christian” content of the proto-American political landscape in this context is mainly influential, and not some determinate paraphrasing of the Bible into the constitution. The majority of the founding fathers had enough experience with, and historical knowledge of, all the various ways a direct insertion of religious beliefs into the political process could go wrong and be abusive, and were (thankfully) determined not to let it happen in creating the operational framework of the new government. Re the specific question of whether the US is really a “crypto-Christian” nation with a fig leaf of separation of church and state laws to make it seem otherwise, the answer is obviously “no”. The American separation of Church and state may not have always been adequately or rigorously enforced, especially in areas of overwhelming religious homogenity, but it is a bedrock of US political and social principal and (even if grudgingly) has normally been upheld where legitimately challenged. These “show me where x article or constitutional paragraph comes directly from the bible” challenges to the “Christian influence” are strawmen to the larger questions of historical influence and operational political reality. ---
**Author:** ![Darkhold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/90db22/32.png) [@Darkhold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darkhold)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2004, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/65 "2004-04-11T23:05:48Z")
> [@astro](#): > > Re the more general historical question of whether the US is a “Christian Nation” in the sense of it’s origin documents and constitution, the answer is “yes” in terms of the prominent place that the value of the individual, and the rights of the individual by extension, within the polity are assigned. More of the same I see. Where is this value of the individual put forth by the church? Where are all the other Christian nations that put forth this principle? Where are rights of the individual put forth in any area in the Bible? Face it these were ideas that arose outside of the Bible and the Christian heritage. > [@](#): > > The aforesaid “Christian” content of the proto-American political landscape in this context is mainly influential, and not some determinate paraphrasing of the Bible into the constitution. The majority of the founding fathers had enough experience with, and historical knowledge of, all the various ways a direct insertion of religious beliefs into the political process could go wrong and be abusive, and were (thankfully) determined not to let it happen in creating the operational framework of the new government. So they were aware of the damaging influence of putting Christian principles into the framework of the government? Glad we’ve finally reached an agreement. > [@](#): > > Re the specific question of whether the US is really a “crypto-Christian” nation with a fig leaf of separation of church and state laws to make it seem otherwise, the answer is obviously “no”. The American separation of Church and state may not have always been adequately or rigorously enforced, especially in areas of overwhelming religious homogenity, but it is a bedrock of US political and social principal and (even if grudgingly) has normally been upheld where legitimately challenged. Some examples for the end of that if you don’t mind? Obviously I agree with the first part. > [@](#): > > These “show me where x article or constitutional paragraph comes directly from the bible” challenges to the “Christian influence” are strawmen to the larger questions of historical influence and operational political reality. I never once asked for that. I asked for where the notions of individual freedom, equality, and democracy arose from the Bible and Christian teachings. It’s a legitimate question. Just because you have no real response doesn’t make it a straw man. Make a connection already. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2004, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/66 "2004-04-11T23:14:18Z")
I knew I could count on you guys. You all rock. I’m awaiting his email reply to my rebuttal of his (very weak) arguments, which amounted to nothing more than some quotes from some founders that included references to God and the like. Weak, weak, weak. Thanks to you guys, I smote him. Smited? ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 11, 2004, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/67 "2004-04-11T23:31:43Z")
> [@](#): > > Re the more general historical question of whether the US is a “Christian Nation” in the sense of it’s origin documents and constitution, the answer is “yes” in terms of the prominent place that the value of the individual, and the rights of the individual by extension, within the polity are assigned. The notion of the intrinsic value of the political individual is directly linked to the New Testament Christian worldview of the intrinsic value of the sacred individual. Well, that’s certainly been asserted. Of course it would be absurd to claim that Christian thought has had no influence on the development of modern European and American civilization, and I’m sure the Enlightenment adopted Christian ideas, as well as rebelled against them. However, the New Testament has been around for going on 2,000 years now, and for at least three-quarters of that time societies with Christian majorities have also been societies with Christian legal and political systems. This is not to blame theocracy on Christianity; indeed, by historical accident if nothing else, Christianity is probably responsible for the notion of dividing the world up into sacred and secular spheres in a way that would be quite alien to classical pagan (or for that matter Biblical Jewish) thought, and therefore paved the way for the possibility of the separation of church and state, of religion as a matter of individual conscience, and of religious liberty. However, during the period of its legal establishment Christianity seems to have co-existed quite happily with slavery, serfdom, and other forms of political and economic coercion; of widespread assertions of fundamental political and social _in_equality–estates of nobility and “commoners”; and of course of the deprivation of individual religious liberty. In part because Christianity was originally a supressed dissident movement in opposition to the state, it came to possess the notion of a “church” separate from the “state”, in a way which didn’t exist in Old Testament Israel or democratic Athens. Despite this incipient possibility of separate secular and sacred spheres, Christians have mostly expected church and state to function hand in glove for most of the history of Christendom, including a belief that the state should act to enforce religious orthodoxy. The Protestant Reformation initially never intended to divide Christianity into competing sects, but only to reform the single church. The Reformers (notably the Calvinists) showed precious little respect for the idea that the “sacred individual” should be allowed to decide for himself what religion he would profess. (I use the masculine pronoun advisedly, since the Christian Church has not historically been a champion of feminism.) Only by inadvertently fracturing the institutions of religion did the Reformation make religious toleration (and later true religious liberty) not only possible but necessary if religiously pluralistic societies like that of England and its colonies weren’t going to tear themselves apart. It has only been in the last few hundred years, with Christianity legally disestablished and (no longer protected by Inquisitions and civil magistrates enforcing laws against “heresy”) subject to serious intellectual challenge, that such ideas as “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (and later that women are also equal) have become universal. As far as I know no pre-Enlightenment civilization in history–including the various Christian civilizations–had ever flatly rejected the ideas of slavery or other forms of coerced labor and institutionalized inequality such as serfdom or caste systems. None of the pre-Enlightenment Christian legal systems seems to have ever operated on the notion of universal equal civil and political rights which Americans now take for granted. > [@](#): > > These “show me where x article or constitutional paragraph comes directly from the bible” challenges to the “Christian influence” are strawmen to the larger questions of historical influence and operational political reality. Based on the OP of this thread, I’m not sure your previous topic of argument isn’t the strawman here. The Religious Right’s pronouncements about the United States being a “Christian Nation” go well beyond philosophical and political science discussions of the origins of American constitutionalism. ---
**Author:** ![jshore](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@jshore](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jshore)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 12:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/68 "2004-04-12T00:12:03Z")
> [@Sam Stone](#): > > It’s important to distinguish between politicians pandering by mentioning God (which they all do, on both sides - John Kerry quoted the Bible last week and attended church with the cameras running), and the government actually enforcing the notion of a ‘Christian Nation’. Which it doesn’t. In fact, even while maybe the most devout President since Jimmy Carter sits in the White House, a judge was thrown off the bench for refusing to remove a statue of the Ten Commandments from a federal building. This ignores the fact that there are considerably different views on issues such as separation of church and state espoused by various judges. And, the ones who have a strong interpretation of it tend to be classified as “liberal” or “moderate” and those who want to interpret such a separation very weakly tend to be “conservative”. And, Bush has been particularly apt to appoint people with strong fundamentalist religious views to various places in the government…e.g., science panels. And, then there’s the whole stem cell issue. You may wish to believe that this issue of a Christian Nation were divorced from politics but it ain’t. (Here in the U.S that is…My impression from my years living in Canada is that the religious Right is way more marginalized there.) ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/69 "2004-04-12T00:49:36Z")
> [@MEBuckner](#): > > Well, that’s certainly been asserted. Of course it would be absurd to claim that Christian thought has had no influence on the development of modern European and American civilization, and I’m sure the Enlightenment adopted Christian ideas, as well as rebelled against them. However, the New Testament has been around for going on 2,000 years now, and for at least three-quarters of that time societies with Christian majorities have also been societies with Christian legal and political systems. . Your point is well taken, that historically Christianity is not especially noted for having originated political systems that enshrine individual rights, but the more narrow point at issue in my example is whether, at the specific confluence of events that spawned the founding of the proto-American nation, the inclination to enshrine individual liberties as one of the main scaffolds of the new political framework was influenced by the specific flavors of Christianity embraced by the polity at that time. The larger question of whether historically, “Christian nations” were a good or bad actors is not what I am addressing. It’s what the influence was _at that time and nexus of circumstances_ the American Nation was founded. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/70 "2004-04-12T01:46:46Z")
Well, you no longer seem to be making the argument that Glenn Tinder is making in the article you cited. He seems to be arguing that Christianity is inherently friendly to the concept of individual rights, and even necessary to the development of that concept; and beyond that that the loss of Christian ideology as the foundation of society will put the continued survival of liberal ideas in jeopardy. One could easily concede that in a particular time and place and set of circumstances a particular sub-type of Christian thought was instrumental in developing the ideals of the Enlightenment and liberal thought, and yet maintain that Christianity has served its purpose and may now be safely discarded in favor of society-wide secular humanism. (Note that because a religion or philosophical movement helps to give rise to some particular political or philosophical concept we accept doesn’t necessarily mean that the religion or philosophical movement in question is generally true.) ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/71 "2004-04-12T16:05:01Z")
The OP’s friend sounds like a member of the “Christian Reconstructionist” movement, which aims to establish Christianity as the state religion of the U.S., and enforce the Bible’s laws as laws of the land. See [http://www.weeklyplanet.com/2004-03-25/cover.html](http://www.weeklyplanet.com/2004-03-25/cover.html). They remain a minority movement even within the larger Christian social-conservative movement, but we had better keep an eye on them all the same. Do you want to be stoned for blasphemy? In 1995 Marvin Olasky published a book, _Fighting for Liberty and Virtue: Political and Cultural Wars in Eighteenth-Century America_ (Crossway Books), arguing that the American Revolution was as much a Christian crusade against the moral corruption of Britain at the time as it was a political struggle. But John J. Reilly (a conservative Catholic, by the way), effectively debunks this thesis at this link: [ur][http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/fflav.htm[/ur]](http://pages.prodigy.net/aesir/fflav.htm%5B/ur%5D) In any case, the majority of Americans are no longer Christians in the sense of believing in Christianity as the one and only true faith. The following comes from _The Next American Nation,_ by Michael Lind (New York: Free Press Paperbacks, 1996), pp. 278-279: > [@](#): > > Conservatives do not recognize how much the nation has changed since the fifties in its religious attitudes. It may be that the religion of nominal Christians in the United States can no longer be described as traditional trinitarian Christian. The scholarly term for their belief is henotheism, the belief that all ethnic groups and cultures have, and should have, their own gods and rites. In Christian theology, this is the heresy of indifferentism. Robert Linder and Richard Pierard have described the evolution of American civil religion: “Its umbrella has changed from evangelical consensus to Protestantism-in-general, to Christianity-in-general, to the Judeo-Christian tradition in general, to deism-in-general.” The decline in belief in Christianity as the only true religion has been extraordinarily rapid in the United States. In a poll taken in 1924 in Muncie, Indiana, 94 percent of high school students agreed that “Christianity is the one true religion and all peoples should be converted to it.” By the late 1970s, merely 38 percent of respondents in a later poll in Muncie agreed that Christianity was the only true faith. Two-thirds of the respondents in a 1991 poll agreed that Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists “pray to the same God.” > > This sentiment no doubt appals Christian and Jewish theologians. From the point of view of those concerned with national unity, however, it is an encouraging development. It lessens the chance that religious discord will produce civil strife. Of the policy of ancient Rome, Edward Gibbon wrote: “The various modes of worship which prevailed in the Roman world were all considered by the people as equally true; by the philosophers as equally false; and by the magistrates as equally useful.” In the United States, “Potomac piety” has been promulgated by statesmen taking the side of the magistrates, from George Washington, who thought that Christianity was useful in protecting “property,” that is, the rich minority, from attacks by populists, to President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who declared: “Our government has no sense unless it is founded on a deeply religious faith, and I don’t care what it is.” Tocqueville noted: “An American sees in religion the surest guarantee of the stability of the state and the safety of individuals . . . much the same may be said of the British.” Will Herberg noted that in the United States Christian and Jewish “denominations” are less religious institutions than instruments of social integration. > > The new, semi-official American religion of indifferentist theism (there is one God and many equally true religions) does not solve the problem of a common ethic. On the contrary, it makes it all the more pressing. Indifferentism necessarily leads to a divorce between religion and ethics, for the simple reason that there is no single, authoritative generic-theist table of commandments. **Fortunately, moral consensus does not require theological consensus.** As the neoconservative scholar James Q. Wilson has pointed out, “Religion is for many a source of solace and for a few a means of redemption, but if everyday morality had depended on religious conviction, the human race would have destroyed itself eons ago.” Somehow Japanese classrooms manage to be orderly without a copy of the Ten Commandments on every classroom wall (a goal of American fundamentalists). Indeed, outside of North America, the most prosperous, least crime-ridden and most educated countries are the post-Protestant societies of Northern Europe, in which traditional Christianity is in serious long-term decline, and the highly secular Confucian societies of East Asia. Conversely, the parts of Europe and the Americas in which institutional Christianity has been strongest in recent centuries, the Catholic and Orthodox countries, have been characterized by poverty, tyranny, and political instability, which exist to an even greater degree in the Muslim world. The most religious part of the United States, the South, has long been the poorest, most violent, and most illiterate section of the country. (Emphasis added.) There can be no doubt that the “moral consensus” of modern American society is based on some Christian values (e.g., the value of the individual, personal honesty, sympathy for the poor and weak, and the idea that there is a sphere of personal autonomy on which the state may not encroach) while rejecting others (self-denial, otherworldliness, traditional sexual morality, and absolute acceptance of any prevailing social order as ordained by God). And I’m pretty comfortable with that. ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/72 "2004-04-12T17:46:33Z")
> [@htns](#): > > Ask him to show you from the Bible where God ever ordained a Constitutional Republic with free elections, freedom of speech / religion / press, and the right to a trial by jury. > > Can’t do it? So much for the idea of America being a Christian nation. Our system of laws derives ultimately from those pagan Anglo-Saxons. That legal tradition, leavened by the knowledge gained from experience in the intervening years, and the principles of the Enlightenment, gave us our current system of government. I don’t see where Christianity entered into it (and I am curious as to exactly which “Christian principles” are supposedly embedded in our system). ---
**Author:** ![toadspittle](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c0e974/32.png) [@toadspittle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/toadspittle)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/73 "2004-04-12T18:47:40Z")
> [@leander](#): > > I think you all are arguing semantics. > > The question really ought to be not whether the framers wrote about God, or even _founded_ America under God; the question ought to be whether America _became_ a nation _based on_ Christian ideology. > > In other words, step back from what the founding fathers said or even meant – and think about whether today America is a nation (as a whole) guided by the principles of Christianity. As far as I can see (especially sitting here in old New Amsterdam), America was founded upon and guided by the principles of commerce, pure and simple. It’s always been about making money. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 7:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/74 "2004-04-12T19:39:15Z")
I suppose this could be a hijack, but I wonder if this friend of the OP has thought about other countries that have claimed to be guided by the Bible. For example, generations of European leaders, from many different countries, claimed a holy mandate for their rule. Yet, freedom and self-determiniation were not always high on those monarchs’ lists of priorities. Those multitude of rulers certainly claimed fealty to a Christian deity, so how is that pledge reconciled with their illiberal rule? Were they pretenders to the throne in the eyes of God? Further, since the US broke with those Old World powers, does he claim that makes our country more Christian than any other, if not the first true Christian nation? Also, how does Britain, with a figurehead monarch in charge of a whole church, stack up on the Christian Nation list? (Seems to me that the UK would then be more Christian than us Yankees, what with the convergence of church and state at the highest levels…) Not really a rebuttal of the excellent points that others have made, but just curious what his response would be. ---
**Author:** ![Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d07c76/32.png) [@Age\_Quod\_Agis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Age_Quod_Agis)\ **Post date:** [April 12, 2004, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/75 "2004-04-12T22:49:15Z")
> [@633squadron](#): > > Washington in particular was known to resist saying “God,” preferring “Providence” instead, to the eternal annoyance of the priests who had him at services. . . . I can just see Washington sitting in the back grumbling every time the padre mentions the “G” word… . . . He probably believes the crap that’s written about Washington, how Washington was a Christian who insisted that Christ was important in the government. Interesting. Perhaps someone should have informed Washington of his aversion to the Christian religion and its lexicon. From [Washington’s prayer journal](http://personal.pitnet.net/primarysources/george.html): > [@](#): > > Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God & guide this day and for ever for his sake, who ay down in the Grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen. That journal itself contains an abundance of references to God and Jesus. When he [resigned as general of the Continental Army](http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/revolution/doc3.html), he said: > [@](#): > > I consider it an indispensable duty to close this last solemn act of my Official life, by commanding the Interests of our dearest Country to the protection of Almighty God, and those Who have the superintendence of them, to his holy keeping. Perhaps you could provide a cite for your assertion? > [@633squadron](#): > > Your correspondent is absolutely dead wrong; he’s being led around by neo-conservative Christians who **want** to believe this junk even though there’s not a shred of evidence for it. I agree that he’s wrong. But to assert that there’s not a shred of evidence for it is just laughable. Plenty of the founding fathers were Christians, or at least ascribed to beliefs that were eerily similar to Christianity. Benjamin Franklin referred to the Bible as the “[Sacred Writings](http://www.christianamerica.com/foundingfathers/ben_franklin.htm),” and made references to the parables contained therein. George Washington made frequent references to “Almighty God,” and “Jesus.” Benjamin Rush was an avowed Christian who thought that [the obligations of Christianity should be taught in public schools](http://www.christianamerica.com/foundingfathers/ben_rush.htm). Roger Sherman thought the Old and New Testaments were “[a revelation from God and a complete rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him.](http://www.christianamerica.com/foundingfathers/roger_sher.htm)” And no smaller authority than [Alexis de Tocqueville](http://www.americanreformation.org/Tocqueville/1_ch17.htm) said: > [@](#): > > The greatest part of British America was peopled by men who, after having shaken off the authority of the Pope, acknowledged no other religious supremacy: they brought with them into the New World a form of Christianity which I cannot better describe than by styling it a democratic and republican religion. This con- tributed powerfully to the establishment of a republic and a democracy in public affairs; and from the beginning, politics and religion contracted an alliance which has never been dissolved. I personally don’t believe that America is a “Christian” nation any more than it is a “white” nation or a “European” nation or a “male” nation. The mere fact that many of our founding fathers were Christians, or seemed closely associated with Christianity, doesn’t mean that the course of our country has been dominated by Christian thought. I’d argue that secular ideals – like equality, capitalism, and freedom – are vastly more important concepts. So while Christianity has had some influence on our politics, it’s a mistake to ignore the other factors that have influenced our country, too. > [@633squadron](#): > > And, since I’m MOT, I will conclude by saying that there is **no such thing** as a Judeo-Christian heritage! Don’t be silly. Of course there is a shared heritage between Christians and Jews. The first Christians _were_ Jews. And Christians still share the values established in what they refer to as the Old Testament. Christians diverge significantly in their religious beliefs from Jews today, but they share a religious _heritage_, and many of the same fundamental values. So while you – a Jew – may disagree with many (or all) Christians on some (or all) things doesn’t mean you don’t have a shared heritage. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/76 "2004-04-13T01:52:58Z")
In reply to the OP, no this is most certainly not a ‘Christian Nation.’ ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 2:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/77 "2004-04-13T02:02:09Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > In reply to the OP, no this is most certainly not a ‘Christian Nation.’ > [@](#): > > Location: Jeddah, Saudi Arabia Well, duh! 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/qadgop_the_mercotan/32/83_2.png) [@Qadgop\_the\_Mercotan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qadgop_the_Mercotan)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/78 "2004-04-13T02:33:17Z")
Forgive me if this point was raised earlier in this thread (which I did read). IIRC, the mainstream definition of a Christian is one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God, born of a virgin, who performed miracles, raised the dead, was crucified, went to hell, rose from the dead, and ascended bodily into heaven. By doing this, he redeemed all mankind. And he was fully God too. (forgive me if I left out a few things, I’m going by memory of what the Apostle’s creed said.) Therefore, to be a _Christian_ nation, wouldn’t the US have to incorporate these beliefs into the structure of the law and government of the country? And yes, I realize that there are many definitions of a Christian, lots of which won’t conform to the above. But still… ---
**Author:** ![Spoke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a88e57/32.png) [@Spoke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spoke)\ **Post date:** [April 13, 2004, 3:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/79 "2004-04-13T15:20:52Z")
The most Christian form of government would be **Communism** , at least if we follow the example set by the early Christians: > [@](#): > > 32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common. > > 33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all. > > 34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, > > 35 And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. [Acts 4:32-35](http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=ACTS+4:32-35&language=english&version=KJV&showfn=on&showxref=on) ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [April 18, 2004, 4:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403/80 "2004-04-18T16:54:55Z")
First of all, thank everyone for your participation. As you already know, you have provided me with pretty much bulletproof evidence of the error of his viewpoint. Which I then provided to him. I copied and pasted the whole Tipoli article and all the quotes. And THIS is the unbelievably pathetic response he gave: > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Pathetic And Sad Christian Man \* \*\* > > Your reply does not address my arguments. Whether this is deliberate, or > derives from a natural state of obtuseness, I don’t know. > > In any case, it is fruitless to debate with someone who will not, or cannot, > grasp the salient points of the argument. > > \*\* It’s times like is that I could fall to my knees and weep for joy that I found this place and you people. The SDMB RULES!!! I thought some of you would like to know. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/help-please-is-this-a-christian-nation/239403.md?page=5)