McCain says US Constitution establishes "Christian Nation"

[jshore]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
For those who argue that the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says, then the Supreme Court saying “this is a Christian nation” is the same as if it were in the text. And therefore the Constitution does say that the US is a Christian nation, in the same way that the Constitution says that the states may not regulate abortion, etc.

So, unless you are a textualist, then McCain is quite correct in what he said. QED.

Regards,
Shodan
[/QUOTE]

In addition to the other good points by John Mace and Raza, I will also add that I don’t think that non-textualists say that the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says. What we say is that it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and their interpretation is the law of the land. We just have a different opinion of how the Supreme Court should be interpretting it. That is different than saying that the Court’s interpetation is infallible. I can disagree with a decision that the Supreme Court makes but still consider it to be the law of the land…just ask Al Gore!

And, textualists…despite their claims…don’t really get around the issue of needing the Supreme Court interpretting the Constitution. One still has to interpret what it says and I would say that only arrogant, egotistical textualists (which unfortunately may be a significant fraction of the textualists) would say that there is one unambiguous correct interpretation.

[RadioWave]

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Getting that out of the way, while I do not believe the Constitution established the United States as a Christian nation, I think we probably shouldn’t be quoting one of John Adams’ treaties with Tripoli as conclusive proof as to whether it did or did not. John Adams was not present for the creation of the United States Constitution, nor was Thomas Jefferson.
[/QUOTE]

Having just finished a lengthy biography of John Adams, I would say that he was considered one of the premier constitutional experts of his time and the only reason he wasn’t present at the writing of the Constitution was that he, Jefferson and Franklin were all in France and Amsterdam raising money for the war.

However, Adams was almost entirely responsible for the writing of the Massachusett’s Constitution which, if you read, you’ll notice it contains a great many references to religion and Christianity. To quote:

@Chapter I

Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

@Chapter II

Article II. The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.]

If anyone would have desired to call America a Christian nation, it would have been Adams. His official stance that America was not founded upon Christianity should carry MORE weight rather than being dismissed. As to what Adams thought of the document itself, I will quote from his inaugural address:

@John Adams

Employed in the service of my country abroad during the whole course of these transactions, I first saw the Constitution of the United States in a foreign country. Irritated by no literary altercation, animated by no public debate, heated by no party animosity, I read it with great satisfaction, as the result of good heads prompted by good hearts, as an experiment better adapted to the genius, character, situation, and relations of this nation and country than any which had ever been proposed or suggested. In its general principles and great outlines it was conformable to such a system of government as I had ever most esteemed, and in some States, my own native State in particular, had contributed to establish.

[VinylTurnip]

Patience, elucidator.

First we acknowledge the truism that we are a “Christian nation,” and then comes the internecine Holy War to determine whose persuasion reigns supreme!

My money’s on the Southern Baptists, on the basis of sheer firepower alone.

[Polycarp]

Shodan: Check out the meanings of dictum. Then, if you would, answer me whether Mr. Justice Brewer’s opinion requires “the recognition of the U.S. as a Christian nation” to justify permitting the immigration of an Anglican priest, or whether that was opinion by Mr. Brewer thrown in to amplify and fortify his point. That would to me define the difference in the two forms of dictum as regards this particular issue – and I’d have the view that it was non-binding obiter dictum.

[John_Mace]

Frankly, I think all this talk about “The Founders” is a red herring. Sure, they wrote the constitution, but why do I care more about what they thought than the guys (and they were all guys) in the State Legislatures who ratified it? Or, what the constituents they represented thought about it? Considering that many of the states had explicit recognition of Christianity in their constitutions, I think it’s fair to say that many of the legislators who ratified the US Constitution were Christians who thought the Christian religion had some place in government, if not at the federal level.

[Martin_Hyde]

[QUOTE=Ludovic]
Interesting. What are these other “nations” within the United States? Everyone who’s not part of an Indian Nation is either Christian or not part of the American Nation? I see. :dubious:
[/QUOTE]

Nope, never said that.

[Martin_Hyde]

[QUOTE=RadioWave]
If anyone would have desired to call America a Christian nation, it would have been Adams. His official stance that America was not founded upon Christianity should carry MORE weight rather than being dismissed. As to what Adams thought of the document itself, I will quote from his inaugural address:
[/QUOTE]

It’s a totally unrelated issue. The United States government (as I’ve already said) is most assuredly secular, not founded “upon Christianity” or any other religion. However, that’s distinctly different from the idea of a “Christian nation.” A Christian nation is simply a nation that is Christian. Nations aren’t founded, they aren’t created by design they are created by the ebbs and flows of different societies and cultural groups that coalesce together to form national identities over hundreds and hundreds of years.

Who “founded” the German nation? No one in particular. Over many hundreds of years a great many people who lived together and had a similar culture “fleshed out” what we view as the “German nation.” Now, there are clearly persons responsible for the founding of Germany the State just as there are clearly persons responsible for founding the United States as a State. However the German nation wasn’t “founded” it simply developed over time as all nations do. Through reproduction, sharing of cultural values across the nation and et cetera.

Note that the German nation is not synonymous with Germany. Members of the German nation live all throughout Europe, with many in Austria and Switzerland.

John Adams is definitely correct that the United States is not founded on the Christian religion. However, McCain did not technically say otherwise, he said that the Constitution establishes a “Christian Nation.” This is patently incorrect not because we are not a Christian nation, but because the Constitution no more founded “America as a nation” than does this message you’re reading right now.

Analyzing America as a nation is difficult because of the fact that there are distinct nations within the United States and there is also a vague, multicultural “mega-nation”, the “American nation.” Traditionally nations have been monocultural and with its members all identifying with the same general racial group (even if they identify with subgroups.) The American nation is multicultural and multiracial (if one can even say there is such a thing as an American nation.) America isn’t unique in this, because the great spread of peoples around the world has resulted in a general meshing of nations to a greater degree than ever before (however even in countries with long histories of being relatively homogeneous nation-states there have always been the meshing of various nations.)

People either believe there is no American nation, but many American nations under one State’s banner, or they believe there are many American nations but also a generalized “American nation” that all of us belong to in addition to our membership in one of the many other nations within the United States; either way we’re talking about predominantly nations that are Christian religiously, both in the number of nations that are Christian within the U.S. and the proportion within those nations themselves which are Christian.

[VinylTurnip]

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Nope, never said that.
[/QUOTE]

No, but your argument does seem to employ a meandering drift among the various definitions of the word “nation,” as though to establish some sort of equivalence between them. The assertion that the United States is a “Christian nation,” as I think you know full well, implies definition #1 here, and that the population of the United States also includes some Indian tribes (definition #3) and ethnic groups (definition #4) is irrelevant.

So now that we all know that by “nation” we’re saying “a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own,” if you still wish to insist that we are a “Christian nation,” I’d be grateful if you could point me to where I, as an atheist, might find the separate (non-Christian) system under which I am governed, and I suspect there’s more than a few Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, etc., who’d appreciate learning whom they might petition for a redress of grievances, all of us apparently now non-citizens of the United States of Jesusland.

[Bricker]

For what it’s worth, Justice Scalia, in his book A Matter of Interpretation, specifically mentions Holy Trinity as an example of the dangers of NOT using a textualist approach – the Court was faced with a conclusion it did not like, and solved the issue by reaching beyond the plain letter of the law – indeed, by turning the plain letter of the law on its head – and following some nebulous unwritten “sense” of what the law should be.

[plnnr]

[QUOTE=John Mace]
Frankly, I think all this talk about “The Founders” is a red herring. Sure, they wrote the constitution, but why do I care more about what they thought than the guys (and they were all guys) in the State Legislatures who ratified it? Or, what the constituents they represented thought about it? Considering that many of the states had explicit recognition of Christianity in their constitutions, I think it’s fair to say that many of the legislators who ratified the US Constitution were Christians who thought the Christian religion had some place in government, if not at the federal level.
[/QUOTE]

I’d be interested in seeing what states had specific recognition of Christianity in their Constitutions. Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom specifically to avoid creation of a “state religion” here.

[Terrifel]

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
Possibly, but doubtful. Female/male is just a biological characteristic, it’s already assumed when you use the word “nation” that we’re talking about a group of people, both female and male. The fact that because of a few various factors some nations have more females than males or more males than females (this tends to be true in many nations to this day) isn’t really significant because it isn’t a defining characteristic of the nation. All nations have a relatively close female/male split with one gender maybe having a few percentage points more than the other.

Christianity is a defining characteristic in the “Italian-American” nation, the “African American” nation, the “Hispanic American” nation, the “Irish-American” nation and et cetera. In general it’s difficult to talk about some of the nations within the United States because they have lost a lot of their identity over the years. The Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans used to clearly be their own nation, much less so today. Whereas the African Americans and Hispanic Americans are still relatively distinct nations.

Even if we view “White America” as a sort of bastardized, conglomerate nation of various European immigrant groups which have melded together, it still has as a defining characteristic “Christianity.” Whereas “female” or “male” wouldn’t be a defining characteristic of any of the nations mentioned.
[/QUOTE]
“Defining characteristic” means that its presence or absence defines membership in a group, right? So if Christianity is a defining characteristic of the “Italian-American” nation or the “African American nation,” then anyone who isn’t Christian isn’t a member of that “nation,” by definition.

Likewise, since you earlier opined that “it only makes sense to call the United States a Christian nation,” you are saying that non-Christians are not truly part of that nation either.

You seem to still be undecided about whether or not the “American nation” even exists. So how are you so certain that it’s a Christian nation?

It does exist, by the way. Some of our widely valued characteristics are inclusivity and freedom of religion. So it doesn’t really make any sense to call us a “Christian nation,” any more than a “white nation.”

[tomndebb]

[QUOTE=plnnr]
I’d be interested in seeing what states had specific recognition of Christianity in their Constitutions. Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom specifically to avoid creation of a “state religion” here.
[/QUOTE]
Here are the God references in state constitutions:

http://www.usconstitution.net/states_god.html

concluding with the following summary

[quote]
Notes

The above excerpts illustrate some interesting points:

[ul][li]In almost all cases, states mention God in the preambles to their Constitutions. Only a few do not. New Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia do not have preambles. Tennessee’s only mentions “Lord” in the context of dates. Oregon’s preamble is decidedly neutral. [/li][li]The use of the term “in the year of our Lord” is very common. [/li][li]Many states mention God in sections that refer to religious freedom, but many of those refer to “Almighty God,” which, by all objective standards, is an endorsement of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity (several of the religious freedom sections mention Christianity specifically). [/li][li]A handful of states, Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, and Tennessee, have provisions that deny elective office to anyone who does not believe in God. These provisions are probably not enforceable. In Arkansas and Maryland, persons who do not believe in God are constitutionally forbidden from being witnesses in a trial. [/li][li]The oaths of office codified in the various constitutions often include the closing statement, “So help me God.” Several states allow an alternate statement such as “Under the pains and penalties of perjury.” Several do not allow an alternate closing, and several have no such closing whatever. [/li][li]Only West Virginia does not include any of the search terms or a variation. [/ul][/li][/quote]
In addition, Massachusetts mentions education being a blessing to the Christian religion and Vermont indicates that while everyone is free to worship as they see fit, Christians really should go to church on Sunday.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=jshore]
In addition to the other good points by John Mace and Raza, I will also add that I don’t think that non-textualists say that the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court says it says. What we say is that it is the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution and their interpretation is the law of the land. We just have a different opinion of how the Supreme Court should be interpretting it.
[/quote]
Distinction without a difference. What non-textualists deny is that something has to actually appear in the text of the Constitution in order to be in the Constitution.

And, textualists…despite their claims…don’t really get around the issue of needing the Supreme Court interpretting the Constitution.

Sure, but that’s not the issue. What 'living document" types seem to argue is that there is no limit at all to what the Supremes can say is in the Constitution.

Never mind abortion as an issue - people can’t seem to argue on any other principle besides whether or not they favor abortion. Take the example of the recent decision where the Supremes ruled that confiscating someone’s property because a developer would pay more in taxes did not violate the takings clause.

On what basis can you argue that this is wrongly decided? Because the Constitution seems to say exactly the opposite?

So what?

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=plnnr]
I’d be interested in seeing what states had specific recognition of Christianity in their Constitutions. Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statue of Religious Freedom specifically to avoid creation of a “state religion” here.
[/QUOTE]

From the original Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

Article III. [As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

And the people of this commonwealth have also a right to, and do, invest their legislature with authority to enjoin upon all the subjects an attendance upon the instructions of the public teachers aforesaid, at stated times and seasons, if there be any on whose instructions they can conscientiously and conveniently attend.

Provided, notwithstanding, that the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, shall, at all times, have the exclusive right of electing their public teachers, and of contracting with them for their support and maintenance.

And all moneys paid by the subject to the support of public worship, and of the public teachers aforesaid, shall, if he require it, be uniformly applied to the support of the public teacher or teachers of his own religious sect or denomination, provided there be any on whose instructions he attends; otherwise it may be paid towards the support of the teacher or teachers of the parish or precinct in which the said moneys are raised.

Any every denomination of Christians, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good subjects of the commonwealth, shall be equally under the protection of the law: and no subordination of any one sect or denomination to another shall ever be established by law.]

Several of the states had established Churches, but that only lasted a few decades, at most.

[Shodan]

[QUOTE=Polycarp]
Shodan: Check out the meanings of dictum. Then, if you would, answer me whether Mr. Justice Brewer’s opinion requires “the recognition of the U.S. as a Christian nation” to justify permitting the immigration of an Anglican priest, or whether that was opinion by Mr. Brewer thrown in to amplify and fortify his point.
[/QUOTE]
I have no idea whether it requires any conclusion other than “the US is a Christian nation” or not. That hardly matters. Nor does it matter why Brewer threw it in there - perhaps because of what Bricker mentions.

I assume you aren’t arguing that the US is not a Christian nation because the treaty cited earlier drew conclusions based on that premise. Wasn’t that equally “opinion thrown in to amplify and fortify a point”?

Regards,
Shodan

[John_Mace]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I have no idea whether it requires any conclusion other than “the US is a Christian nation” or not. That hardly matters. Nor does it matter why Brewer threw it in there - perhaps because of what Bricker mentions.

I assume you aren’t arguing that the US is not a Christian nation because the treaty cited earlier drew conclusions based on that premise. Wasn’t that equally “opinion thrown in to amplify and fortify a point”?
[/QUOTE]

I am arguing that the US is not a Christian nation because of the 1st amendment, and because no SCOTUS decision has translated that to mean “the US is a Christian Nation”. There is difference between a SCOTUS justice mentioning in a decision that most people consider the US to be a Christian nation, and that justice saying that we must interpret the 1st amendment that way.

[villa]

[QUOTE=Shodan]

Sure, but that’s not the issue. What 'living document" types seem to argue is that there is no limit at all to what the Supremes can say is in the Constitution.

[/QUOTE]

Just that seems to you to be what they are arguing, doesn’t mean it is the case. Even those who see view the Constitution as an evolving document accept that when it is clear on something, one does not look beyond the text.

That’s a pretty clear limit on what the Supremes can say is in the Constitution.

Generally, it seems to me (and also, with much more credibility, to Ronald Dworkin) that the Constitution was, at times, written in deliberately vague terms to allow the interpretation of it to adapt over time, and it seems to me that textualists manipulate language to attempt to demonstrate clarity when none was ever there.

The language of the Court there is, I think, dicta, though I would need to read the case more closely. Also, the Court made the decision based on construing the statute, not by a constitutional decision.

[ElvisL1ves]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Can you explain to me what Christian values are??
[/QUOTE]
One would seem to be that a slave is worth only three-fifths of a free white.

@Hamlet

We’re more a Slavery Nation than a Christian one.

Maybe not. The Bible says a great deal supporting slavery. And destroying Amalek, whatever the hell that was.

@Bricker

the Court was faced with a conclusion it did not like, and solved the issue by reaching beyond the plain letter of the law … and following some nebulous unwritten “sense” of what the law should be.

It’s called “justice”. You may have heard of it sometime, You might also have heard of something called “the spirit of the law”. :dubious:

Christ had a great deal to say about justice. You could look it up. Probably should, too.

[tomndebb]

As divisive as this topic may be, I have not seen any reason for anyone to decide to make it a personal fight, so personal remarks should probably be kept out of this thread.

(Not aimed at a particular post or poster, but to a trend I see developing.)

[ /Modding ]

[ElvisL1ves]

[QUOTE=Shodan]
I have no idea whether it requires any conclusion other than “the US is a Christian nation” or not. That hardly matters.
[/QUOTE]

Then what was your purpose in bringing it up? :dubious: Post 29:

@Shodan

Maybe McCain was agreeing with the Supreme Court that “this is a Christian nation.”