America a Christian nation? Not according to the Treaty of Tripoli.

[marc]

Honestly, I'm still not sure of your point. Maybe you could just briefly and directly lay out your personal beliefs. Here are mine:

In short, the founders intended for religion to be a part of public life and obviously to be one of the nation's core freedoms, but did not intend for this to be a Christian nation. Many of the appeals to God use enlightenment language and tend to not address Jesus specifically.  Some of the founders were Christians, some were deists. Being an atheist or agnostic was political suicide, however, as Thomas Paine discovered.

On the deist side, Franklin is the most magnanimous example, as he said positive things about every major religion and even proposed a public cathedral for Christians, Muslims, Hindus or whatever to worship in.

In short, our government wasn't created to combine Christianity and the state, or even to give Christianity a favored status, but it also wasn't created to be an areligious entity. Our founders built in a respect for and dependence on God, but were careful not to build a particular religion into our government.

[TonkaTim]

Honestly, I'm still not sure of your point. Maybe you could just briefly and directly lay out your personal beliefs. Here are mine:

In short, the founders intended for religion to be a part of public life and obviously to be one of the nation's core freedoms, but did not intend for this to be a Christian nation. Many of the appeals to God use enlightenment language and tend to not address Jesus specifically.  Some of the founders were Christians, some were deists. Being an atheist or agnostic was political suicide, however, as Thomas Paine discovered.

On the deist side, Franklin is the most magnanimous example, as he said positive things about every major religion and even proposed a public cathedral for Christians, Muslims, Hindus or whatever to worship in.

In short, our government wasn't created to combine Christianity and the state, or even to give Christianity a favored status, but it also wasn't created to be an areligious entity. Our founders built in a respect for and dependence on God, but were careful not to build a particular religion into our government.

We are close in agreement

though;

Thomas Paine is not a founding father, he wa a propagandist in the employ of Franklin. Paine was an Englishman by birth, a citizen of the world by choice, a reluctant US resident only by the mercy Jefferson extended him after Paine found himself a man without a country due to his actions in his native europe as a revolutionary provocateur.

Ageed - Franklin's religious views were clear in his youth, they do appear ambiguous & confusing in his greater age. Though whether he was an actual Diest like Paine was is very unclear. But his later writings do make clear his promotion of religion in general for the positive moral virtues. Franklin being a philospher at heart in the vein of Solon the ancient greek lawgiver, whom he admired, appears to be espousing the same necessity of virtue

Agreed in that they did not make & secured the protection that the United States government would never be a Theocracy as long as the current Constitution stood.

The founders did recognize the nation as Christian.

They knew, understood, and fostered the concept the People are the nation.

That government is merely the instrument of People and does not constitute the nation.

therefore;

When the People change beliefs the nation would become what the People are.

If the People today are still vast majority Christian, then America remains a Christian nation.

If the People become atheist the nation becomes one as well.

While the instrument of the People - the Constitution for the United States - secures religious liberty - it also forbids a Theocracy. That is what the "establishment" clause is all about.

English Dictionary
establishment  (ɪˈstæblɪʃmənt)  
— n  
1.  the act of establishing or state of being established  
2. something established; a constituted order or system
3. the recognition by a state of a church as the state church
4. the church so recognized, esp. the Church of England
5. the existing power structure in society; the dominant groups in society and their customs or institutions; institutional authority

I believe you are debating from a position of error. You seem to be debating from the position that the Constitution for the United States established the nation and is the nation. Which is another fallacy we find in our current corrupted education system.

The United States as a country was recognised & established years prior to the addendum of the Constitution. The prior authorization that gives legitimacy to the Constitution are the Articles of Confederation. The Articles are still codified organic law in the US Code. The Articles are also a protection. The Constitution is merely an addendum(amendment) to the Articles of Confederation.

I know this because of the totality & history of our organic law, the notes on the Constitutional Convention, the Federalist papers, the Anti-Federalist Papers, the writings, reference material, and letters of the framers. Our Constitution is established by right & authority of the previous organic law. It starts with our first organic law, The Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration establishes the free & sovereign States. The Declaration is perpetual & universal. The Declaration also & more importantly declares the supreme truth of God-given authority of man, the People. The concept comes from Genesis 1 of the Holy Bible on the sixth day of creation when God gives man authority over all the Earth and is commanded to "subdue" it. Just as man is the creation of God & subject to the sovereignty of Him. Government is the creation of man and subject to the sovereignty of them. Regardless of the differences between the men at the Constitutional Convention of 1787 none disagreed with this statement of Benjamin Franklin on June 6, in Convention debate - "In free Governments the rulers are the servants, and the people their superiors & sovereigns"

While the Constitution for the United States is currently the foundation for our current Federal system it is not supreme. It constitutes the current law of our current system. The proof that it is not supreme & final is the fact that it is amendable & voidable. In itself contains the power of it's own destruction in the ability of the People & the States to call Constitutional Convention. When Convention is called, they the Constitutional Congress reverts back to the authority delegated in the Articles of Confederation specifically Article XIII. The fact that the Articles of Confederation were not voided but merely altered & ceded temporary authority to the Constitution ("more perfect Union" not "new Union") is a protection and is fundamentally important for all to understand why. This prevents a Convention Congress from establishing a new Constitution and declaring it in force by will of the Convention alone. This point is incredibly important and is illustrated by the very fact the Articles of Confederation are still codified and recognized as Organic Law. Without this protection a coup could be administered against the People. With this protection a coup against the People can not happen because they still wield the protections of the Articles of Confederation, any alteration ie: A new constitution is forever subject to ratification of the State Legislators, and thus the People.

It is also of great import for one to understand that the Declaration, Articles of Confederation, Ordinances of 1787 do not invalidate or nullify the Constitution but are the foundations that uphold it & are in agreement, why they are still codified as organic foundational law. In them we also see more protections of our Liberty, our God-given rights, and the power of the People to form States should the Constitution fall. These premises of fact are why we and the founders use the term "Constitution for the United States"(as actually written in the Constitution) & the usurpers call it the Constitution of the United States. The usurpers want to establish a myth that the Constitution is the be-all, end-all foundational document. If they can get the People to believe this myth as truth & fact, when the time comes for the coup the ignorance of the People will allow them to succeed.

When we use and recognize the legitimate phrase "for the United States" we understand that the United States exists prior to the establishment of the Constitution and is built upon supports that precede it & if the Constitution falls, we still stand as the nation called the United States of America with Freedom & Liberty.

Those that use the myth phrase "of the United States" are declaring the Constitution the sole support, the sole final supreme establishing document of the United States & if the Constitution falls, the nation called the United States of America falls with it. God forbid.

On the last day of Convention Benjamin Franklin had these words read into the record -
"  Mr. President

I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others. Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from them it is so far error. Steele a Protestant in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as of that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain french lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right-Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison."

In these sentiments, Sir, I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered, and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it, when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government, being incapable of any other. I doubt too whether any other Convention we can obtain, may be able to make a better Constitution. For when you assemble a number of men to have the advantage of their joint wisdom, you inevitably assemble with those men, all their prejudices, their passions, their errors of opinion, their local interests, and their selfish views. From such an assembly can a perfect production be expected? It therefore astonishes me, Sir, to find this system approaching so near to perfection as it does; and I think it will astonish our enemies, who are waiting with confidence to hear that our councils are confounded like those of the Builders of Babel; and that our States are on the point of separation, only to meet hereafter for the purpose of cutting one another's throats. Thus I consent, Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best. The opinions I have had of its errors, I sacrifice to the public good. I have never whispered a syllable of them abroad. Within these walls they were born, and here they shall die. If every one of us in returning to our Constituents were to report the objections he has had to it, and endeavor to gain partizans in support of them, we might prevent its being generally received, and thereby lose all the salutary effects & great advantages resulting naturally in our favor among foreign Nations as well as among ourselves, from our real or apparent unanimity. Much of the strength & efficiency of any Government in procuring and securing happiness to the people, depends, on opinion, on the general opinion of the goodness of the Government, as well as of the wisdom and integrity of its Governors. I hope therefore that for our own sakes as a part of the people, and for the sake of posterity, we shall act heartily and unanimously in recommending this Constitution (if approved by Congress & confirmed by the Conventions) wherever our influence may extend, and turn our future thoughts & endeavors to the means of having it well administred. . "

I find it ironic that some people believe that the United States rises & falls upon one exclusive document with no recourse or preceding protections. We see by Franklin's words the founders were skeptical and concerned with the frailty of the Document. He states that would it eventually lead to absolute Despotism. These were wise & forward thinking men, one can tell by the use of the word "Despotism" Franklin is reminding all of the words contained in the Declaration and reminding posterity of their "right & duty". Yes they left us with fail safes & protections to ensure that Freedom, Liberty & the United States would stand and could be up-righted if she should stumble. These fail safes & protections are the other codified Organic Laws from which the Constitution for the United States of America was born.

TT

[marc]

Historically, "Christian nation" has a certain meaning, one the founding fathers took care to avoid--a nation with an official state religion.


btw, I know Thomas Paine wasn't a founding father, but Glenn Beck doesn't.

The idea of the supremacy of the Constitution was controversial in its time (Jefferson thought the Declaration took precedence, and, in spite of his friendship with Madison, was skeptical,) but since then, I believe it's place has been established. But then, that goes into my Civil War views, which is an entirely different subject....

I do think the Constitution's being a living document gives it the potential to always be relevant, while the Bill of Rights means it should always be fair. Too often, though, it is simply inconvenient to the Powers the Be.

[Palmtree77]

Praise the Lord, 

I wanted to add that it is doubtful there were many deists amongst the Founding Fathers.

If I recall correctly were not 50 of the 55 signers of the Constitution Christian? 

I believe so and I also subscribe to the thought that any attempt to portray the Founding Fathers as nothing more than White rich racists, is an attack on the very foundation of this great country.


A lie has to be propped up, but the Truth stands on its own.

[Palmtree77]

it gets worse a lot of our founding fathers were Masons of a high degree and not ignorant of what the mason objective is  either.

What was that?


Freemasonry today is not the same Freemasonry of the past.

[Jaime]

Praise the Lord,  

I wanted to add that it is doubtful there were many deists amongst the Founding Fathers.

If I recall correctly were not 50 of the 55 signers of the Constitution Christian?  

I believe so and I also subscribe to the thought that any attempt to portray the Founding Fathers as nothing more than White rich racists, is an attack on the very foundation of this great country.


A lie has to be propped up, but the Truth stands on its own.

But the existence of the few Deist has gotten the lion's share of the press lately, the last 50 or so years, as if the vast majority were Deist.

[Jaime]

btw, I know Thomas Paine wasn't a founding father, but Glenn Beck doesn't.

http://americanhistory.about.com/od/revolutionarywar/tp/foundingfathers.htm

[Jaime]

I watched a replay of several of Beck's Founder's Friday programs this afternoon, featuring David Barton. Great stuff!

[marc]

Ugh. Barton's more a mythologist than a historian.

btw, about Paine, he was an inspirational writer, but played no part in founding the U.S. government.

[Jaime]

I disagree strongly about Barton.

[marc]

Too tired to get into it much, but check this link, and click the word 'cataloged'. Even religious leaders are denouncing Barton's pseudo-scholarship.

[Jaime]

Everytime I have listened or read David Barton, I noticed he gives at least one and most times two sources for his cited facts. He always seemed to have support, as in actual writings from other historical sources than himself for his history assertions.

I would be glad to consider examples where he hasn't. But really in my experience, he is almost overly cautious in citing sources.

The critique in your link was a lot of ad hominem (my least favorite pharase other than non-sequitor), rather than substantive opposition. Also it seemed that a lot of the critique was that Barton's claim that separation of church and state was not justification to remove all religion from the public square, are the very people defending that nutty notion.

[marc]

The question is the context of the sources he uses. For instance, he quotes John Adams as if Adams is expressing his own sentiments when in fact Adams is mocking the statement Barton credits to him. The link I provided gives several examples of his misuse of what he cites. He reminds me a lot of Lost Cause revisionist Thomas DiLorenzo in the way he cites sources.

[Jaime]

Most of the times he has put up actual quotes as in a bibliography. Again his opponents opposition of his separation of church and state stance is way wrong in my view. He may be out of the mainstream, but in most cases, that ain't a bad thing, especially where the mainstream is flowing today.

I would assume he has made some mistakes, but his detractors have made some honkers in my opinion.

On the replay of the Beck program, Barton asserted that there was a black patriot, (can't remember his name) that rode north when Paul Revere was riding East I believe, and warned of the British advance. I never knew that. It was a tidbit that didn't make most history books, that I read. He showed two articles in a couple of papers at the time that referred to this. Very interesting I thought. The majority of the program he brought the day I watched was the contribution of blacks in the founding of our country. And yes, founding has more to do than just making a governmental contribution. He made the point that yes slavery was a horrible scar, but we don't hear enough about what black patriots contributed.

I get the feeling that a lot of disdain for him is unfounded because he is conservative and an evangelical. I realize liberal academics feel they have a lock on truth.

[marc]

Again, the problem with his quotes is that he takes them out of context, which distorts their meaning, sometimes even reversing it. I've seen the program you're referring to, and it was a good program, but too often, he uses information in a poor way to distort history to fit his views.  That's never right, whether you're doing it for 'Christian' purposes or not.

[Jaime]

Again, the problem with his quotes is that he takes them out of context, which distorts their meaning, sometimes even reversing it. I've seen the program you're referring to, and it was a good program, but too often, he uses information in a poor way to distort history to fit his views.  That's never right, whether you're doing it for 'Christian' purposes or not.

And again, most of my experience has been with things like I just described, the black Paul Revere character. That kind of stuff can't be taken out of context, but it can be left out or taken out of text books, which is Barton's point a lot of times.

Also again, I realize he is in the vast minority of thought and perspective when he argues against a lot of "expert's views" that separation of church and state means to extricate religion from the public square. He is absolutely right on his view and his learned opponents are dead wrong.

[marc]

Only if you choose to ignore the evidence to the contrary, such as the statement in the op.

Truth is truth, whether we like it or not. I'd love to say that my favorite founders, such as Jefferson and Washington, were always magnanimous and wise, but the truth is that Jefferson was as dirty a politician as ever lived, and that both held slaves, Washington mistreated his before the revolution (afterward, his views seem to have changed) and Jefferson considered his as property. 

This does not eliminate the great good they did for this country, but instead recognizes the imperfection in us all. I have had to stop defending the man who was once my favorite historian, Alan Eckert, because much of what he wrote had to have been intentionally made up.

Good historians do not just report what supports their case or lifts up their heroes; they tell the truth as they discover it.  Barton, otoh, takes sources out of context in ways that can only be intentional in order to prove his points.  Perhaps this is not surprising because he is not, after all, a trained historian.

[Jaime]

I think his detractors ignore plenty of evidence on things he is correct on. The truth is nothing supports sanitizing religion from the public square as some "learned scholars" contend. My focus when I listen to him is the trivia that doesn't make the history books, like the black Paul Revere character. Yes, we need to verify, but as I said, to me it seems he always does give mostly two witnesses and sometimes just one.

He is also right that most of the founders were Bible believing Christians. A small minority were deists. Somehow that got translated into history as "most of the founders were deists." Simply not true.

Again, most of what I have read negative about Barton is about this very subject. THEY are wrong, and he is right. If he misquotes somethings, he needs to be corrected, just like anyone else. But of course conservatives screwing up quotes is way worse than liberals screwing up quotes, ie Sarah Palin.

The separation of church and state to sanitize religion from the public square is definitely not an academic consensus. It is pretty much a liberal academic consensus, but that's why I'm sure they are wrong.

[marc]

If you're saying that credentials and such make something less believable, there's not much left to say.

[Jaime]

If you're saying that credentials and such make something less believable, there's not much left to say.

If you agree with them on the church and state issue, then no there isn't much left to say. That's where the rubber meets the road it seems on the whole affair with Barton vs his detractors.

Can academics with credentials be right? absolutely! But they got this one wrong. Barton is right. If he has lied, told half truths, etc,  in other areas, I will consider it. I ain't gettin' money from his books. But I will not write off someone speaking against the current of the mainstream view, just because it is different. If Barton says, Thomas Jefferson lead the closing prayer in two separate church services in May of 1774,  I would only want to see proof of it in the form of a newspaper article, or church bulletin or such. Just Barton saying it with no proof would mean nothing.

I agree with what you are saying about the slaves etc. Barton was not condoning slavery in any way, in fact he made that very disclaimer before he began his story about the black patriots. He was not saying history got it wrong about the blacks, but history did handily ignore some major contributions by black patriots. He was saying there are many things that black people can take pride in as to the contributions to the founding of this country. And I think he is right. Does that in any way minimize the horror of slavery, absolutely not. But there is no reason to sanitize any and all contribution from blacks out of the History books.

[Mere Nick]

Jaime,

Well, according to the Library of Congress Jefferson went to church in the House of Representatives while president.   

[Jaime]

Jaime,

Well, according to the Library of Congress Jefferson went to church in the House of Representatives while president.   

He must not have gotten the memo yet.

[marc]

If you'll check my earlier responses on this thread, you'll see this is consistent with what I think. America, while not founded as a Christian nation, was intended to be a nation in which religion played a prominent, public role. Jon Meacham's "American Gospel" covers this well.

[Jaime]

I'm not arguing if America is or was a Christian nation, I'm arguing that separation of church and state has been perverted to apparently mean all vestiges of religion must be scrubbed from the public square. Obviously the meaning and interpretation of the phrase "Christian Nation" is wildly varied depending on perspective. Also, I understand that the term is largely an oxy moron, but no more than saying I come from a Christian Family. Can a family fit the bill as Christian in the strictest sense? No. But in a descriptive sense as opposed to an atheistic family, it does.

[marc]

The point is that David Barton argues that America was and is a Christian Nation.

fwiw, I prefer tearing down walls to building them.

[Jaime]

Again, it boils down to definition of Christian Nation. Just as in my example of Christian family.

[Jaime]

As to the Christian nation thing, America collectively never made a faith response to the gospel. We were founded with Christian principles. America was every bit as much a Christian nation as it could be said to be a good and compassionate nation, was everyone good, compassionate and Christian? No, but all those things had great influence on this country.

Again, you and I much less David Barton or President Obama can't agree on what that phrase means. Maybe we ought to use Christian INFLUENCED nation, but I suspect that might not pass muster either.

[AndyCothran]

well i think its yes and no seeing that some of our founding fathers were deists ..then .....

[Jaime]

Yes, they key word is "some" or more specifically "a few". In particular Franklin and Jefferson.

http://freemencapitalist.com/founding-fathers/founding-fathers-religion/

There were some that were considered Deists, which is nothing like the atheists of today, Ben Franklin who was considered a Deist said the following:

"God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel

[marc]

A deist would pretty much be the opposite of an atheist, but it is also not a Christian. There were other founders who were deist. Jefferson, fwiw, insisted he was a Christian.

[Jaime]

Awvwral Several websites I have seen list Jefferson and Franklin as Episcopal (deist).

[marc]

You might want to move your left hand a little to the right....

[Jaime]

Actually it's my left thumb on my Ipad keyboard. A real challenge for a guy whose thumbs cover most of 4 letters.

[larry2]

You might want to move your left hand a little to the right....

I thought he was typing in Klingon; jIyajbe'   

[Jaime]

I'm fluent in Kosher Pig Latin