Was the US founded on Christian principles?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

Classical Islam had many institutions that split power into different areas of society. For example, Islamic scholars were, as a rule, not the people who did policy, and parallel courts existed run by Kings and such that could overrule the Islamic law courts. So people who advocate for secular states in the Muslim world (that we wouldn’t always recognize as American-style secularists) have history to draw on. Still, using the word “secular” to apply to Islam before colonialism will get you chewed out by most Islamic studies professors. Why? Because the foundational ideas that undergird secularism were not classical Islamic ones. Islam has its own intellectual currents dealing with these questions. Trying to make sense of Islamic history with words like “secular” has led to a lot of harmful policy and scholarship over the years.

Christendom also had both secular and eccelesiastical courts nor was outside of perhaps the Papal States was government policy decided by theologians even during the Mediaeval period.

To all: Here’s another principle that we could say American was founded on, and has been inseparable from American Christianity: Racism.

In what sense? The Founding Fathers were probably no more racist than anyone else at the time and at least for some of them (ie Thomas Paine) a good deal less. Also how is racism “inseperable” from American Christianity.

[Measure_for_Measure]

@John_Mace

Look at this, from Massachusetts’ original constitution:

The problem is that passage was over-ridden by the 11th amendment. I found it difficult to locate the date that the 11th was passed, but this Texas State University honors thesis says that religion was eliminated from the Constitution in 1833. I’ll add that the updated language still references piety: Article XI

Instead of the third article of the bill of rights, the following modification and amendment thereof is substituted.

"As the public worship of God and instructions in piety, religion and morality, promote the happiness and prosperity of a people and the security of a republican government; -- therefore, the several religious societies of this commonwealth, whether corporate or unincorporate, at any meeting legally warned and holden for that purpose, shall ever have the right to elect their pastors or religious teachers, to contract with them for their support, to raise money for erecting and repairing houses for public worship, for the maintenance of religious instruction, and for the payment of necessary expenses: and all persons belonging to any religious society shall be taken and held to be members, until they shall file with the clerk of such society, a written notice, declaring the dissolution of their membership, and thenceforth shall not be liable for any grant or contract which may be thereafter made, or entered into by such society: -- and **all religious sects and denominations, demeaning themselves peaceably, and as good citizens 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.**" [See Amendments, Articles. XLVI and XLVIII, The Initiative, section 2, and The Referendum, section 2].   Emphasis added. Nothing about paying for priests. 

I wish my cites were a little stronger. FWIW, the honors thesis suggests that Massachusetts lagged behind other state governments in ridding their constitution of religious requirements.

[nani]

[QUOTE=Qin Shi Huangdi]
Christendom also had both secular and eccelesiastical courts nor was outside of perhaps the Papal States was government policy decided by theologians even during the Mediaeval period.
[/QUOTE]

That’s true. Well there were some Prince-bishops here and there, I guess. But these institutions in Islamic and Christian areas also came with corresponding and relatively distinct intellectual/philosophical/theological histories and justifications.

In what sense? The Founding Fathers were probably no more racist than anyone else at the time and at least for some of them (ie Thomas Paine) a good deal less. Also how is racism “inseperable” from American Christianity.

Racism in America at the time had a different character than racism in Mexico, in North Africa, or in Mughal India.

Racism in America specifically developed a great deal as a result of theological and intellectual attempts to reconcile the realities of slavery (and later, segregation) with local forms of Christianity.

Anti-racism in the US also owes a lot to Christianity. I remember reading James Cone’s God of the Oppressed. Blew my mind.

[monavis]

@nani

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?

The idea of you shall not kill was changed to mean murder, so wars, self defense could be legal, but not if a woman used it in case of an unwanted pregnancy.

[monavis]

@nani

I should clarify that while I think saying the US was founded on Christian principles is fair (though it needs heavy contextualization), I don’t agree with what people like Sarah Palin want this statement to justify today. For me, this claim just recognizes the context of what was happening at the time of the founding. Christianity played a really big role (while not the only role, it did affect pretty much everything). It still plays a really big role. Even in areas that are not immediately obvious. We stand on the shoulders of giants, etc.

Christianity does share much in common with other religions in its principles but the thought that goes into explaining those principles, and the way these principles are applied, have different histories and vary between and within religions. Pacifism is a Christian principle. It is also a Buddhist principle. The ways it is a Christian principle are different than the ways it is a Buddhist principle.

I don’t think a “exclusive connection” has to be established, just a connection. I think in the case of the founders and America generally, Christian influences dwarf others. But they do not overwhelm them and those other influences should also be noted.

To your edited point: I think the Christian influences that went into defining and applying American secularism are really strong and can be shown. I will say though, that if Christians go through the effort of formulating or adopting some principle and claiming it as Christian, then sure, it’s Christian. Two principles can contradict each other and still both be Christian.

The world is no better today with so called Christian principles than when the Ten Commandments were used. The principles have been in use even long before Christianity and one can see how many Christians are in our jails.