Logic problem: The founding principles of the U.S. and Christianity.

[Ziploc Surprise]

Isn't the history of the U.S. from it's independence from England to the present proof that we were supposed to have separation between church and state. I don't see how things could have developed the way it did if this weren't so. If this country was founded as a Christian country with no separation between church and state, a religion would have taken over by now. In fact, given the numbers of different religions groups that settled here, wouldn't there have been several religious wars by now?

And, on another note, wasn't the governmental system that was invented/conglomerated by the founding fathers done with the intense understanding of human fallibility and religious fallibility (i.e. there was no notion that because humans were so fallible they needed a god/religious system to govern them.) The system of checks and balances and balance of power was a foundational part of the system. In other words it's like saying "we humans are fallible and so is the (very human) church so we must set up a system that will account for this". by balancing power, setting limits, and having one system or group accountable to another etc. it sets up a situation where things can be resolved through reason instead of by domination and war. Though I have explained this poorly, I'd still say that our governmental system is a product of the enlightenment, not of christendumb. In other words it's more proof that the fundies are wrong about the founding of the U.S. But perhaps I'm just another ignorant atheist who's just going off at the mouth again. Looking for proof where there is none.

---

Xtianity gave us the Divine Right of Kings. The Enlightenment ( which thought religion was horseshit) gave us the concept of personal freedom and consent of the governed.

But you know xtians, they are easily confused.

What? We are not supposed to be slaves to Christ?

Rom 1:1 LITV Paul, a slave of Jesus Christ, a called apostle, separated to the gospel of God,

Gal 1:10 LITV For do I now persuade men or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I yet pleased men, I would not be a slave of Christ.

Paul is talking to Timothy here. He refers to Timothy as a slave of the Lord.

2Ti 2:24 LITV But a slave of the Lord ought not to quarrel, but to be gentle towards all, apt to teach, forbearing,

This is a concept which, through abuse, can be twisted to oppress people by teaching the concept that human will must submit fully to christ (which always gravitates to submission to some sort of oppressive system and or individual). Our will it not our own it is (the) _____'s (fill in the blank).