I agree with this. Many state constitutions (though not the US Constitution) appear to have a significant foundation in religion.
The United States was founded on a variety of principles (in which the various Founding Fathers held to in differing degrees) including Christian principles (especially as seen through the lens of Natural Law), the classical republican tradition of Greece and Rome, the Anglo-Germanic tradition of common law and traditional liberties, and Enlightenment principles of universal human rights and secularism. Also the United States has grown more secular over time, allowing the principles of the First Amendment to seem down onto the state and local levels, resulting in the disetablishment of various churches supported by state government.
In addition there are at least some Christian ministers who argue to this day the United States was founded at least partially in violation of Christian principles as the American Revolution was a “rebellion” against what Romans 13 commands.
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
Unanimously approved by the US Senate in May 1797 and signed by President John Adams.
Ah, see already cited.
I will point out that this was when our original founding fathers were still running the place, and it was ratified without a single dissenting vote.
Thou shall not kill, unless it’s the death penalty.
Unless you are an absolute pacifist “thou shalt not murder” does not equal “thou shalt not kill” (and the former is obviously meant by the Sixth Commandment).
Christian principles, especially of that era, were absolutist. But the U.S. governments founding principles are compromises.
If the Constitution had actually embraced Christian principles, a number of “Blue Laws” – especially observance of Sunday as a day of rest – would have been incorporated. Certainly the “No religious test” clause would never have been included.
At the beginning, the USA recognized neither the Divine Right of Kings, called by God himself gods; nor the charitable ethos of Yeshua the Jew.
So, no. Not “Christian” (in the historical sense) nor “Christlike” (in the New Testament sense). Just “Masīḥī” maybe, if even that. “Christian” inasmuch as they went to Xtian churches and came from a culture with that shared mythological heritage.
No, it wasn’t. Claiming otherwise is done for latter-day political gain.
But how is “thou shalt not murder” a Christian principle? It’s a universal principle.
A Christian principle would be something like “Jesus is the manifestation of God made human”. And I don’t see that idea being incorporated into American law.
How is “murder” defined? Are there situations when people can take a life and it’s not murder? How about the state? What are the punishments for murder and who carries them out? Is war murder?
Etc. etc. etc.
All of these questions have answers that vary from place to place and are deeply influenced by religious factors that are themselves evolving. American attitudes toward lethal force are greatly influenced by specific currents of Christian thought. In other places, other currents of Christian thought and/or non-Christian traditions lead to different outcomes.
500 BC the Buddha as I see it, said;'Treat others as you would want to be treated, that takes in all the principles of every religion.
That is of course true, but you have to try to understand how some of these brainwashed/broken minds work. They think that their Christian deity (of which Jesus is an aspect) created the concept, and every concept for that matter. So all principles are Christian principles to them.
What’s a Christian principle?
To live an ascetic life, render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, serve the poor, shun wealth?
Do these sound like principles America abides by today or at the time of its founding?
Not really.
For example, Christianity traditionally frowns upon things like the killing of civilians in wartime (on the one hand) and abortion (on the other), and regards both as violations of the sixth commandment. In America, we have large stockpiles of various kinds of weapons of mass destruction, we have actually used nuclear weapons where no other country has, and we have legalized abortion. The death penalty is a whole other debate, and the historical position of Christian churches regarding the death penalty is ambiguous. But in general our attitudes towards lethal force don’t seem to me to be ‘greatly influenced by specific currents of Christian thought’.
Many religious traditions do not really have this as a principle. Even among those that do, the way it is explained and applied varies.
Or, they could be recognizing that the way the concept is defined and applied in different areas depends in large part on religious influences. To give an example:
Murder is explicitly forbidden in the Qur’an. There are, however, acceptable uses of lethal force, and in Islamic law killing is not always considered murder, such as in the case of manslaughter. Still a serious crime, but not murder. The reason is because the punishments for murder are given in the Qur’an as well: death, or in the case the family of the deceased agrees, restitution.
Now, this brings up the problem, well, what if the killer is a member of the victim’s family? Sunni legal schools were split on the issue. Hanafi, Sha’afi, and Hanbali jurists generally held that a father would not intentionally murder his son (this is the case study generally used, I haven’t found specific references to other forms of inter-family murder). Therefore, such cases were generally dealt with as accidents or cases of manslaughter. Maliki jurists disagreed. All the while, of course, the local ruling Islamic authority (who was almost as a rule not a legal scholar) could adjust the verdicts and sentences.
As you can imagine, despite the importing of Western legal codes into many Islamic countries, these sorts of cases continue to be influenced by these religious understandings.
Similarly, the effects of American racial categories - that developed in part out of a desire to legitimize slavery for Christians - on how murders of Blacks are treated continue to reverberate.
Changing attitudes among Christians regarding the death penalty have also affected the principle of “thou shalt not murder.” And so on.
What principles do you think America abides or abided (abode?) by and why do you think those aren’t connected to religion?
First, let’s put those goalposts back where they belong-Christian principles, not religious principles.
The problem is a lot of people don’t understand the distinction between Christian beliefs and beliefs held by Christians.
Considering what all’s in the Bible, a lot of Christians can’t make that distinction.
How about “Don’t get divorced.”
That’s clearly a Christian belief. Jesus himself said it in the New Testament.
The idea of Just War and non-combatants/civilians in the Western sense is developing over time with tremendous influence from religious thought. Augustine didn’t have the same ideas about how to conduct warfare that the Crusaders had or Pope Francis has. When it came to fighting the Cold War, to take one example, American policymakers were enormously influenced by theologian Reinhold Niebuhr. Abortion has a similar history (Southern Baptist leadership originally supported Roe v. Wade, if I remember correctly).
These are all also influenced by American ideas of the powers of the state as an authority separate from the Church, which again owes a great deal to America’s specific religious context. As I said, American secularism is arguably a “Christian Principle” and certainly is deeply influenced by America’s specific religious context.