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

[Ziploc Surprise]

the Pilgrims arrived just prior to the Enlightenment movement.

Yet they were just one colony. Most of the others were commercial in nature at their founding.

Even so, just because people begin one way does not mean they are required to never grow. Not everyone is a fundie lunatic.

For so many separate colonies to come together to form one country there had to have been some sort of separation of church and state. Yes the colonies were commercial in nature but, generally speaking, not pluralistic in religion. We are dealing with a society that saw irreconcilable differences in minor points of doctrine. Separate denominations might as well have been separate religions for most of them. It wasn't that long ago that some denominations honestly believed that other denominations were bound for hell.

If the founding fathers intended this country to be a Christian country that general term meant little to those who practiced Christianity back then. It's the flavor of Christianity that mattered.

[Rokcet Scientist]

It wasn't that long ago that some denominations honestly believed that other denominations were bound for hell.

That changed?
I didn't get that memo.
Nor did the Jihadists/Crusaders (of every religion), who are more than willing to help us non-believers on our way.

The northern half of Nigeria and the Taliban, both Afghani and Pakistani, are current demonstrations.

[Godscreated]

I have a small logic problem. Many Christians promote the belief that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation. As some of their evidence they say that the founding fathers were Christians, and that the country was founded on Christian principles.

The founding Fathers of this country are not necessarily the writers of the constitution. They did form the federal government and a set of basic rights for all people and wrote in protections for the people from the government. They however were the product of generations before them, these men would have never know of oppression of a government that was ran by the church if their predecessors had not taught them, they were the ones fleeing the church dominated government. Yes this country was founded on Christian i.e. Biblical principles. To address Min's statement, yes many came here for reasons of profit, companies sent many people, some came looking to make their fortune, some came to find a new way of life, some came to be free to worship God as they saw fit and most of these people were Christians, so the overwhelming majority of people here were Christian.

Here's my problem: Aren't ideas like freedom of religion and the separation of church and state naturally opposed to what seems to naturally become the Christian agenda (that is to dominate, oppress, and take over)? If the founding father's really were Christians bent on making this a Christian country why would they want freedom of religion and a separation of church and state? Wouldn't that interfere with their agenda? Wouldn't it lead to the most powerful church taking over? If we in the U.S. were to go back to our Christian roots so to speak won't that involve trashing freedom of religion and the idea of separation of church and state?

The christian agenda in this country was based on religious freedom long before the constitution was written, and that agenda was not to dominate, oppress and take over, that's what they had run from in many European countries. Yes they wanted all to believe and there were some very bad things done by zealous people, but as a whole Christianity was peaceable in this land. The bad stories are the one's that make the news, then and now, but the bad apples were a minority compared to the good works of the christian dominated society of the time. This is the way our forefathers saw freedom of religion, one true religion "christianity," and the freedom to worship within this Christian based religion as each saw fit, or not to believe or worship if that was one's choice. The other world religions were not really a part of their world view and thus inconsequential to most. This is why christians say and believe this country was founded on christian principles.
I can't speak for all christians but I do believe most feel like I do, that the true intent of separation of church and state is so that one particular denomination of Christianity would not have control of the government, and thus a government mandated christian belief that everyone should walk by. I know that we do not believe that the framers of our government meant to keep what was important in their lives out of government or our schools, the Bible and prayer, most saw these as valuable to one's life and good for the society as a whole. They never intended for Christianity to be forced on all nor excluded from all, they wanted people to be introduced and or made aware of it. Then each individual could make a decision for themselves as how to use it. Yes I will say again that there were over zealous people who wanted it forced on others but they were the one's that shouted the loudest and got most of histories attention, that however does not mean they were the dominate force in this country and Christianity in particular. So the freedom of religion and the separation of church and state walk hand in hand for the betterment of this country as far as christianity is concerned.
[/quote]

[Ziploc Surprise]

It wasn't that long ago that some denominations honestly believed that other denominations were bound for hell.

That changed?
I didn't get that memo.
Nor did the Jihadists/Crusaders (of every religion), who are more than willing to help us non-believers on our way.

The northern half of Nigeria and the Taliban, both Afghani and Pakistani, are current demonstrations.

I stand corrected: It has not changed but it has lightened up a lot in western countries. When it comes to denominations within Christianity, Christians have become more tolerant.

[kılıç_mehmet]

Here's what I think:

Many Christians promote the belief that the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation.

I agree with them.
Why? Well, the majority of the population of the US was indeed christian.

However, I'm sure that they cannot contradict the your constitution that explicitely states that the congress cannot make laws that favor one religion over the other. And now, especially when America has large populations of non-christians(I'm excluding atheists, since most atheists are of christian upbringings or *culturally* christian).

As some of their evidence they say that the founding fathers were Christians, and that the country was founded on Christian principles (for more see the video link).

It certainly does not matter. If the founding fathers were, say Jews, would America be a Jewish nation? It certainly would still have been a christian nation no matter what, since the majority of the people and the people who voted for the leaders were, in fact, christian.

Aren't ideas like freedom of religion and the separation of church and state naturally opposed to what seems to naturally become the Christian agenda

If you want to discuss theology...We can, of course. For example, I can quote stuff from the bible that seems to support a secular way of life, meaning, seperating the state from the church, some will agree, some will disagree, and most of you probably know what I'd quote from the Bible if I'd quote it.

My idea is, if the founding principles of the US were opposed to the Christian religion, I could state from the start that people would certainly not be very accepting of them in the first place.

that is to dominate, oppress, and take over

Overdramatizing again, are you?

If the founding father's really were Christians bent on making this a Christian country why would they want freedom of religion and a separation of church and state?

Let's see. Maybe they saw how the anglicans and catholics were always hitting eachother over the head back in England(the country they originated from), and stated that religious(denominational) conflicts would not rule the US? And America was alsor receiving large quantities of puritans that fled persecution back in Europe. The promises of freedom of religion promised them this.
Besides, it was as a matter of fact, a Christian country back then. People were much more religious, and religion played a large part in people's lives, not to mention that the majority of the population was as a matter of fact, Christian.

If we in the U.S. were to go back to our Christian roots so to speak won't that involve trashing freedom of religion and the idea of separation of church and state?

I don't think so.

"That the separation of church and state does not exist in the constitution"

It certainly does.
Besides, what does the state do? It enacts laws. And this is where the first amendment really hits it.
It's fairly certain to say that secularism is guaranteed by the State.
However, it does not have an anti-religious, or an anti-christian stance.

[Ziploc Surprise]

Here's my problem: Aren't ideas like freedom of religion and the separation of church and state naturally opposed to what seems to naturally become the Christian agenda (that is to dominate, oppress, and take over)?

It's called "having your cake and eating it too." They only want freedom of religion when it comes to their own religion. It's OK for them to push their religion into government, but not OK for anyone else to do the same thing. Like Mr. Agenda wrote, they lose their minds at the idea of atheists, Hindus or any other non-Christians being equal to them in the eyes of government.

Wow, I didn't even know that had happened. Perhaps I'm living under a rock...oh wait I know...I'm living in Texas.

I'm waiting for the day when an event like that can begin with an Atheist statement. Just a good philosophical thought to encourage better behavior.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

My understanding is that the 'founding fathers',who sailed on The Mayflower and landed at Plymouth Rock,were Puritans,you know, like Oliver Cromwell. The modern Christians who seem to compare the most accurrately with the Puritans seem to me to be good ole Fred Phelps and his spawn.

So I would not go around bragging that my country was founded by such a group of closed minded,superstitious bigots*,but hey,that's just me.

My point:who founded the country is irrelevant, as are the intentions of the writers of the Constitution. In a country (allegedly) "Of the people,by the people,for the people" it is the people who get to decide the kind of country they will have.

They may if they wish abolish the constitution and write a new one at any time,in fact that is effectively what they have done with the amendments.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

*the American puritans actually hanged a whole bunch of people they thought were witches.lymouth Rock;1620. Salem witch trials; 1692.

[Minimalist]

For so many separate colonies to come together to form one country there had to have been some sort of separation of church and state.

I disagree, Zip. All they really needed was a common enemy which the British thoughtfully provided.

[Ziploc Surprise]

My understanding is that the 'founding fathers',who sailed on The Mayflower and landed at Plymouth Rock,were Puritans,you know, like Oliver Cromwell. The modern Christians who seem to compare the most accurrately with the Puritans seem to me to be good ole Fred Phelps and his spawn.

So I would not go around bragging that my country was founded by such a group of closed minded,superstitious bigots*,but hey,that's just me.

My point:who founded the country is irrelevant, as are the intentions of the writers of the Constitution. In a country (allegedly) "Of the people,by the people,for the people" it is the people who get to decide the kind of country they will have.

They may if they wish abolish the constitution and write a new one at any time,in fact that is effectively what they have done with the amendments.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

*the American puritans actually hanged a whole bunch of people they thought were witches.lymouth Rock;1620. Salem witch trials; 1692.

This brings up an interesting point and possibly a reason for the confusion of the founding principles of the U.S. Those who founded the original colonies are not the same people who founded the country. Many of the colonies were religious experiments as well as financial endeavors. The U.S was an effort to combine a small group of very different colonies into a nation. The nation had to have religious tolerance in order to survive. A separation of church and state was a way to ensure this.

When the religious yahoo's of our time spout off about how America ought to go back to it's religious roots, back to the intentions of the founding father's they are usually speaking of the beginning of the United States, not the original colonies, and they are also speaking of people like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Thomas pane, and some even try to slap a form of Christianity on Benjamin Franklin and use him.

As for religious assholes like the puritans they didn't just kill witches there were others they killed for religious reasons. Take Anne Hutchinson for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Hutchinson

---

For so many separate colonies to come together to form one country there had to have been some sort of separation of church and state.

I disagree, Zip. All they really needed was a common enemy which the British thoughtfully provided.

The pressure from the British is what caused them to put down their differences and compromise instead of bicker about things until they all die. They had to work out solutions in a relatively short amount of time or face treason charges from the British. One of the main concerns of that time was the threat of one religious organization dominating or having the ability to dominate everyone else. Eliminating religion would not have been a viable option. Allowing both to exist within their own reasonable spheres of influence but not have the ability to dominate the other was the way to have nation full of religiously diverse people.

---

This is a response to Kilic_mehmet's post:
I've addressed the confusion as to the definition of founding father in my recent response to another post so I won't repeat it here.

The bullshit about the founding father's being christian (which, oddly, if you listen to many fundies today talk about the founding of the U.S., oddly sounds a lot like modern Christian fundamentalism) is not my line of bullshit it's the fundies bullshit. Somehow in their little spiel they slap a religion on the founding fathers (they even manage to to this to Ben Franklin occasionally) and then make the assumption that since they were Christian they naturally did the Christian thing which was to create some flavor of a theocracy. Don't kill me I'm only repeating their bullshit. Over the decades I've heard several renditions of the "founding fathers/Christian country" spiel.

One more thing, although the population of the new nation was mostly Christian, it was not all the same flavor of Christian. These differences were important to them.

The horrors of the reformation were still fresh in the minds of the founding fathers. So also were the abusive powers of the oppressive governments of their time. The founding father's were children of the enlightenment. They believed that humans should be led by reason.

As for the overdramatising comment I'm actually not overdramatising this. I'm a bit of a history buff. I've read several church history books, books about the reformation and of United States history, even a biography (not his autobiography) of Benjamin Franklin. Religion and government were very oppressive back then. I't hard for us to imagine this today...unless you live in modern day theocracy of course.

My comment about the constitution deals with the spiel that the fundies usually use. I've actually had my ass reamed with this a few times. They say loudly that the separation between church and state is not in the constitution blah blah blah. It's just a twisting of words for them.

Godschild: I actually like your post (this does not mean that I agree with you though. I like the fact that you have taken the time to really think about things and I respect this). I don't have the time right now to address your post but I intend to do so soon.

[Rokcet Scientist]

When it comes to denominations within Christianity, Christians have become more tolerant.

While some would like to see you lynched you where you stand, you debauched sinner! Like the Westboro Witch:

They haven't become more tolerant at all! Just less powerful to act on their intolerance. But that can flip in an 'instant': remember how fast the Tea party gained traction? One skydaddy lover in the White House and you could have an honest to goodness inquisition on your hands.
Again.
(McCarthy)