| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michelle Malkin" |
| Date: |
14 Dec 2007 04:54:07 PM |
| Object: |
US NOT A Christian Nation! |
I found this in a message in the GAM.org list. Hopefully,
some of the fundamentalists invading alt.atheism will
also read it.
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of
Church and State
by R.P. Nettelhorst
Introduction
Many well-meaning Christians argue that the
United States was founded by Christian men on
Christian principles. Although well-intentioned,
such sentiment is unfounded. The men who led
the United States in its revolution against
England, who wrote the Declaration of
Independence and put together the Constitution
were not Christians by any stretch of the
imagination. Why do some Christians imagine
these men are Christians? Besides a desperate
desire that it should be so, in a selective
examination of their writings, one can discover
positive statements about God and/or
Christianity. However, merely believing in God
does not make a person a Christian. The Bible
says that "the fool says in his heart, there is no
God." Our founding fathers were not fools. But
the Bible also says "You say you believe in God.
Good. The demons also believe and tremble."
Merely believing in God is insufficient evidence
for demonstrating either Christian principles or
that a person is a Christian. Perhaps, to start, it
might be beneficial to remind ourselves of
what a Christian might be: it is a person who
has acknowledged his or her sinfulness,
responded in faith to the person of Jesus Christ
as the only one who can redeem him, and by
so doing been given the Holy Spirit. The early
church summarized the Christian message in
six points:
1. Jesus came from God.
2. You killed him.
3. He rose again on the third day.
4. He sent the Holy Spirit
5. Repent and be baptized.
6. He's coming back.
An individual who would not acknowledge this
much of the Christian message could not, by
any stretch of the imagination, be called a
Christian. The founding fathers of this country
did not acknowledge this message. In fact, they
denied it.
Founders of the American Revolution
Thomas Jefferson created his own version of
the gospels; he was uncomfortable with any
reference to miracles, so with two copies of
the New Testament, he cut and pasted them
together, excising all references to miracles,
from turning water to wine, to the resurrection.
There has certainly never been a shortage of
boldness in the history of biblical scholarship
during the past two centuries, but for sheer
audacity Thomas Jefferson's two redactions of
the Gospels stand out even in that company.
It is still a bit overwhelming to contemplate the
sangfroid exhibited by the third president of the
United States as, razor in hand, he sat editing
the Gospels during February 1804, on (as he
himself says) "2. or 3. nights only at Washington,
after getting thro' the evening task of reading
the letters and papers of the day." He was
apparently quite sure that he could tell what
was genuine and what was not in the
transmitted text of the New Testament...
(Thomas Jefferson. The Jefferson Bible; Jefferson
and his Contemporaries, an afterward by Jaroslav
Pelikan, Boston: Beacon Press, 1989, p. 149.
In his Notes on Virginia, Jefferson wrote:
The legitimate powers of government extend to
such acts only as are injurious to others. But it
does me no injury to my neighbor to say there
are twenty gods or no god. It neither picks my
pocket nor breaks my leg. (Dumas Malon,
Jefferson The President: First Term 1801-1805.
Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1970, p. 191)
Thomas Paine was a pamphleteer whose
manifestoes encouraged the faltering spirits
of the country and aided materially in winning
the War of Independence. But he was a Deist:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the
Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the
Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the
Protestant Church, nor by any church that I
know of. My own mind is my own church.
(Richard Emery Roberts, ed. "Excerpts from The
Age of Reason". Selected Writings of Thomas
Paine. New York: Everbody's Vacation Publishing
Co., 1945, p. 362)
Regarding the New Testament, he wrote that:
I hold [it] to be fabulous and have shown [it]
to be false...(Roberts, p. 375)
About the afterlife, he wrote:
I do not believe because a man and a woman
make a child that it imposes on the Creator the
unavoidable obligation of keeping the being so
made in eternal existance hereafter. It is in His
power to do so, or not to do so, and it is not in
my power to decide which He will do. (Roberts,
p. 375)
John Adams, the second U.S. President rejected
the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and became a
Unitarian. It was during Adams' presidency
that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and
Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI
that:
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 Musselmen, - and as the said
States never have entered into any war or act
of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is
declared by the parties that no pretext arrising
from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between
the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed.
Treaties and Other International Agreements of
the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11:
Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.:
Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072).
This treaty with the Islamic state of Tripoli had
been written and concluded by Joel Barlow
during Washington's Administration. The U.S.
Senate ratified the treaty on June 7, 1797;
President Adams signed it on June 10, 1797 and
it was first published in the Session Laws of the
Fifth Congress, first session in 1797. Quite
clearly, then, at this very early stage of the
American Republic, the U.S. government did
not consider the United States a Christian
nation. Benjamin Franklin, the delegate to the
Continental Congress and the
Constitutional Convention. He has frequently
been used as a source for positive "God" talk.
It is often noted that Franklin made a motion
at the Constitutional convention that they
should bring in a clergyman to pray for their
deliberations:
In this situation of this Assembly, groping as
it were in the dark to find political truth, and
scarce able to distinguish it when present to
us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have
not hitherto once thought of humbly applying
to the Father of lights to illuminate our
understandings? .... I have lived, Sir, a long
time, and the longer I live, the more
convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God
governs in the affairs of men. (Catherine Drinker
Bowen. Miracle at Philadelphia: The Story of the
Constitutional Convention, May to September
1787. New York: Book-of-the-Month Club, 1966,
pp. 125-126)
It is rarely noted that Franklin presented his
motion after "four or five weeks" of deliberation,
during which they had never once opened in
prayer. More significantly, it is never mentioned
that Franklin's motion was voted down! Fine
Christians, these founding fathers. Furthermore,
the context is usually ignored, too. He made the
motion during an especially trying week of
serious disagreement, when the convention
was in danger of breaking up. Cathrine Drinker
Bowen comments:
Yet whether the Doctor had spoken from policy
or from faith, his suggestion had been salutary,
calling an assembly of doubting minds to a
realization that destiny herself sat as guest and
witness in this room. Franklin had made solemn
reminder that a republic of thirteen united
states - venture novel and daring - could not
be achieved without mutual sacrifice and a
summoning up of men's best, most difficult
and most creative efforts. (Bowen, p. 127)
About March 1, 1790, he wrote the following in
a letter to Ezra Stiles, president of Yale, who
had asked him his views on religion. His answer
would indicate that he remained a Deist, not a
Christian, to the end:
As to Jesus of Nazareth, my Opinion of whom
you particularly desire, I think the System of
Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us,
the best the world ever saw or is likely to see;
but I apprehend it has received various corrupt
changes, and I have, with most of the present
Dissenters in England, some Doubts as to his
divinity; tho' it is a question I do not dogmatize
upon, having never studied it, and I think it
needless to busy myself with it now, when I
expect soon an Opportunity of knowing the
Truth with less Trouble...." (Carl Van Doren.
Benjamin Franklin. New York: The Viking Press,
1938, p. 777.)
He died just over a month later on April 17.
Deism
Certainly it is generally the case that these
people believed in God, but it was not the God
of Christianity. Deism began in the eighteenth
century and was very popular in America.
According to the dictionary, it was "a system
of thought advocating natural religion based on
human reason rather than revelation." Jefferson
wrote that the religious doctrines of Jesus that
he accepted, and which he regarded as
consistent with his deistic perspective were
three:
1. that there is one God, and he all-perfect:
2. that there is a future state of rewards and
punishments
3. that to love God with all thy heart, and thy
neighbor as thyself, is the sum of religion.
Why do Christians want the founding fathers
to be Christians? Is it because they wish the
best for these people? Hardly. It is because
they hope that by demonstrating they were
Christians, they can justify their political
agenda. Rather than wanting something new
(the injection of Christianity into government)
they seek to restore something they imagine
has been lost. Reality: nothing has been lost.
It wasn't there to start with. Therefore the
whole concept of "taking back America" is a lie.
America was never Christian.
Recent Misinformation on the Concept of
Separation of Church and State
Some Christians are currently arguing that the
concept of separating church and state was not
in the minds of the founding fathers, and that it
is a recent and pernicious doctrine that is the
result of
Supreme Court decisions in the 1950's and 60s.
This simply isn't true. Separation of church and
state is not something the Supreme Court
invented in the 1950's and 60's. The phrase
itself appears in a letter from President Thomas
Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of
Danbury, Connecticut, on Jan 1, 1802. The
Baptist Association had written to President
Jefferson regarding a "rumor that a particular
denomination was soon to be recognized as
the national denomination." Jefferson responded
to calm their fears by assuring them that the
federal government would not establish any
single denomination of Christianity as the
National denomination. He wrote: "The First
Amendment has erected a wall of separation
between Church and State." Notice the phrasing
in the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 3:
The Senators and Representatives before
mentioned, and the Members of the several
State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial
Officers, both of the United States and of the
several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no
religious Test shall ever be required as a
Qualification to any Office or public Trust under
the United States. The concept of the separation
of church and state appears in the 1963 Baptist
Faith and Message (a revision of an earlier
statement where it also appears) adopted by
the Southern Baptist Convention:
God alone is Lord of the conscience, and He
has left it free from the doctrines and
commandments of men which are contrary to
His Word or not contained in it. Church and
state should be separate. The state owes to
every church protection and full freedom in
the pursuit of its spiritual ends. In providing
for such freedom no ecclesiastical group or
denomination should be favored by the state
more than others. Civil government being
ordained of God, it is the duty of Christians
to render loyal obedience thereto in all things
not contrary to the revealed will of God. The
church should not resort to the civil power to
carry on its work. The gospel of Christ
contemplates spiritual means alone for the
pursuit of its ends. The state has no right to
impose penalties for religious opinions of any
kind. The state has no right to impose taxes
for the support of any form of religion. A free
church in a free state is the Christian ideal, and
this implies the right of free and unhindered
access to God on the part of all men, and the
right to form and propagate opinions in the
sphere of religion without interference by the
civil power.
Look at what Roger Williams, the founder of
Rhode Island, had to say about religious
freedom in the 17th century. He was a Baptist
persecuted for his faith who argued for the
separation of church and state nearly a hundred
fifty years before Jefferson.
The Church and State need not be, Williams
insisted, inextricably linked: 'A Pagan or
Antichristian Pilot may be as skillful to carry
the Ship to its desired Port, as any Christian
Mariner or Pilot in the World, and may
perform that work with as much safety and
speed.' 'God requireth not an Uniformity of
Religion to be inacted and inforced in any
Civill State,' he declared. Rather, the tares in
the field of Christian grain must be left alone;
let man hold whatever religious opinions he
chooses provided he does not 'actually disturb
civil peace,' ran a provision of the Rhode Island
Charter of 1663; let civil government be based
on the consent of the governed. 'The Soveraigne,
originall, and foundation of civil power lies in the
People,' Williams insisted. They 'may erect and
establish what forme of Government seemes to
them most meete for their Civill condition.'
William's plea for Separation of Church and
State stemmed far less, Harold Laski writes,
from tender concern for men's consciences than
from 'a fear that their unity meant the
government of the Church by civil men and
thus a threat to its purity.' Popular control of
the Church through elected magistrates
Williams thought evil since it gave the Church
'to Satan himself, by whom all peoples natural
are guided.' The precise intention of Scripture
could not be ascertained, he believed, with the
icy certainty claimed by the New England clergy.
He wanted Church and State separated so the
Church would not be corrupted by the State.
Thomas Jefferson entertained the opposite
conviction, fearing that the State would become
contaminated by the Church. (Alpheus Thomas
Mason. Free Government in the Making:
Readings in American Political Thought. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 55)
In his tract on the topic of religious toleration
Williams made some important points:
....Fourthly. The doctrine of persecution for
cause of conscience, is proved guilty of all the
blood of the souls crying for vengeance under
the altar. Fifthly. All civil states, with their
officers of justice, in their respective
constitutions and administrations, are proved
essentially civil, and therefore not judges,
governors, or defenders of the spiritual, or
Christian, state and worship. Sixthly. It is the
will and command of God that, since the
coming of his Son the Lord Jesus, a permission
of the most Paganish, Jewish, Turkish, or
antichristian consciences and worships be
granted to all men in all nations and countries:
and they are only to be fought against with
that sword which is only, in soul matters, able
to conquer: to wit, the sword of God's Spirit,
the word of God. Seventhly. The state of the
land of Israel, the kings and people thereof, in
peace and war, is proved figurative and
ceremonial, and no pattern nor precedent for
any kingdom or civil state in the world to
follow. Eighthly. God requireth not an uniformity
of religion to be enacted and enforced in any
civil state; which enforced uniformity, sooner
or later, is the greatest occasion of civil war,
ravishing of conscience, persecution of Christ
Jesus in his servants, and of the hypocrisy and
destruction of millions of souls. Ninthly. In
holding an enforced uniformity of religion in
a civil state, we must necessarily disclaim our
desires and hopes of the Jews' conversion to
Christ. Tenthly. An enforced uniformity of
religion throughout a nation or civil state,
confounds the civil and religious, denies the
principles of Christianity and civility, and that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. Eleventhly.
The permission of other consciences and
worships than a state professeth, only can,
according to God, procure a firm and lasting
peace; good assurance being taken, according
to the wisdom of the civil state, for uniformity
of civil obedience from all sorts. Twelfthly.
Lastly, true civility and Christianity may both
flourish in a state or kingdom, notwithstanding
the permission of divers and contrary consciences,
either of Jew or Gentile... (Roger Williams. The
Bloudy Teneent of Persecution for the Cause of
Conscience Discussed, 1644. excerpted from
A.T. Mason. Free Government in the Making.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1965, p. 64)
Notice what Ulysses S. Grant said in his seventh
annual address (State of the Union address) to
the Congress, December 7, 1875:
As this will be the last annual message which
I shall have the honor of transmitting to
Congress before my successor is chosen, I
will repeat or recapitulate the questions which
I deem of vital importance which may be
legislated upon and settled at this session:
First. That the States shall be required to
afford the opportunity of a good common-
school education to every child within their
limits. Second. No sectarian tenets shall ever
be taught in any school supported in whole
or in part by the State, nation, or by the
proceeds of any tax levied upon any
community. Make education compulsory so
far as to deprive all persons who can not
read and write from becoming voters after
the year 1890, disfranchising none, however,
on grounds of illiteracy who may be voters
at the time this amendment takes effect.
Third. Declare church and state forever
separate and distinct, but each free within
their proper spheres; and that all church
property shall bear its own proportion of
taxation (A Compilation of the Messages
and Papers of the Presidents. Vol. X. New
York: Bureau of National Literature, Inc.,
1897, p. 4310)
Here is a quotation from the Encyclopedic
Index of A Compilation of the Messages
and Papers of the Presidents, published
in 1917:
Religious Freedom. - The First Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States (q.v.)
requires that "Congress shall make no law
respecting the establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Religious freedom doubtless had its greatest
inspiration from James Madison while he was
in the Virginia Legislature. An attempt was
made to levy a tax upon the people of
that state "for the support of teachers of the
Christian religion." Madison wrote what he
called a "Memorial and Remonstrance," in
which he appealed to the people against the
evil tendency of such a precedent, and which
convinced people that Madison was right. A
bill was passed providing "that no man shall
be compelled to frequent or support any
religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever
* * * nor shall suffer on account of his religious
opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free
to profess, and, by argument, maintain their
opinions in matters of religion, and that the
same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or
affect their civil capacities." The religious
test to which many of the states put their
office-holders were gradually abandoned, and
the final separation of church and state in
America came in 1833, when Massachusetts
discontinued the custom of paying preachers
A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of
the Presidents, Vol. XX. New York: Bureau of
National Literature, Inc., 1917).
It should be clear, from these quotations, that
the concept of separating church and state is
hardly of recent invention in the United States,
since we see it as far back as at least 1644.
It cannot seriously be argued that it sprang as
a result of weird ideas in the 1950's and 60's.
In point of fact, the decisions rendered by the
Supreme Court at that time on school prayer
are entirely consistent with the general thrust
of U.S. history. If this is a "Christian" nation,
then why did Jefferson write what he did to a
group of Baptists? Shouldn't he instead have
said that they had something to worry about?
If the concept of separating church and state
were a recent idea, then why did Jefferson
himself use it, one of the founding fathers
and author of the Declaration of
Independence? I think it is a big surprise to
the Jewish people who have been living here
for longer than my ancestors (who only got
here in the middle of the 19th century) to
think that this is a "Christian" nation. If it
were "Christian" then there would be religious
requirements to be a part of it and to
participate in the public arena. If this were
a Christian nation, then why are so few
Americans Christians? Even the most optimistic
Gallup pole shows that barely 1/3 of the U.S.
population claims to be "born again".
Interestingly, that's up considerably since
the time of the nation's founding, when barely
ten percent, if that, claimed intense religious
affiliation. I believe that those who talk about
"restoring" prayer to the public school have a
misunderstanding of the Supreme Court ruling
and have failed to carefully think through their
position. The Supreme Court decided in 1962
that for the school administrators to write
prayers and read them over the intercoms to
the students was wrong. It is hard for me to
figure out how anyone in their right mind
would think it's a good idea for the state to
compose prayers and force them on people.
So why would you want to "restore"
government sponsored religiosity? Students
and faculty and other employees are free to
pray for themselves if they want; that has
never been a problem (admittedly, some
examples of overzealous administrators who
didn't understand the issue, who tried to
stop individuals from exercising their
religious beliefs, can doubtless be found;
but that is the exception, not the rule. That
there are murderers is not proof that murder
is legal.). As a Baptist, I frankly would be
bothered by a Moslem or a Hindu writing a
prayer for my child. I no more want them
imposing their religious views on me and mine
than they would want me to impose my Baptist
beliefs on them. And what about the agnostics
and atheists? They no more wish to be
inundated by religious concepts in school than
I would like to have my children inundated by
their beliefs (or lack thereof). The attempt in
the public arena is toward neutrality;
certainly it is a tough ideal to reach, and
certainly there are a lot of mistakes made
on all sides. Certainly, too, in the past there
has been a lot of inconsistency in these
ideals. But the ideal remains nevertheless.
The history of the U.S. has been one of lofty
ideals rarely achieved; our shame is that we
so rarely reach what we proclaim: freedom,
equality, and the like. But our pride is that,
unlike so many before, at least we have
ideals and we're trying, how often
unsuccessfully, by fits and starts, to reach
them. Most of the political disagreements
between the parties is not so much over
the goals (both Democrats and Republicans
want a free, prosperous, safe and happy
society), but over the methods to reach
those goals. Demonizing the opposition is
not reasonable, and both parties are guilty
of this (Democrats tend to turn Republicans
into Fascists and Republicans tend to turn
Democrats into Communists; neither
caricature is accurate, appropriate or
dignified).
The American Revolution, at its Foundation,
was Unscriptural
At its foundation, our American revolution
was unscriptural. Therefore I have a hard time
seeing how our government could have been
founded on Christian principles, when its very
founding violated one:
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to
every authority instituted among men: whether
to the king, as the supreme authority, or to
governors, who are sent by him to punish
those who do wrong and to commend those
who do right. (1 Peter 2:13-14)
No matter how you cut it, the founding fathers
were revolting against the King of England. It
should be remembered that Peter wrote these
words while Israel was suffering under the
domination of government far more oppressive
than England ever was. In fact, compared to
current taxes, our forefathers had nothing to
complain about. What Peter wrote seems
perfectly clear and unambiguous; furthermore,
it is consistent with what Jesus said about his
kingdom not being a part of this world
(John 18:23 and 36). As a Christian, it would
be very difficult to justify armed revolt against
any ruler. Passive resistance to injustice and
evil, as embodied in the concept of civil
disobedience, however, does have Scriptural
precedent (as for instance in the case of the
early Christians described in Acts 5:28-29:
"We gave you strict orders not to teach in this
name," he said. "Yet you have filled Jerusalem
with your teaching and are determined to make
fjus guilty of this man's blood."
Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must
obey God rather than men!" (see Acts 4:18-20)
Civil disobedience means obeying a higher,
moral law, but willingly suffering the
consequences of your actions and submitting to
the authority of those in power to arrest or even
kill you for your disobedience. Peter and the
others were arrested, and many of them were
ultimately martyred. But they never participated
in violent protest, nor did they resist those in
authority by violence.
Conclusion
Certainly many of the early immigrants to the
New World came for religious reasons - often
to escape persecution. However, they were
not interested in religious freedom for anyone
other than themselves, and often turned
around and persecuted others who had
slightly different viewpoints. As Pastor
Richard T. Zuelch pointed out in his letter
to the Los Angeles Times on August 14, 1995:
Gordon S. Wood, in his 1992 book, "The
Radicalism of the American Revolution,"
states that, by the 1790's only about 10% of
the American population regularly attended
religious services - to quote just one statistic.
Not exactly an indication of a wholehearted
national commitment to Christianity! It is a
matter of simple historical fact that the
United States was not founded as, nor was it
ever intended to be, a Christian nation. That
there were strong, long-lasting Christian
influences involved in the nation's earliest
history, due to the Puritan settlements and
those of other religious persons escaping
European persecution, cannot be denied.
But that is a long way from saying that
colonial leaders, by the time of the outbreak
of the Revolution, were intending to form a
nation founded on
specifically Christian principles and doctrine.
We Christians do ourselves no favor by
bending history to suit our prejudices or to
accommodate wishful thinking. Rather than
continue to cling to a "Moral Majority"-style
fantasy that says America is a Christian
nation that needs to be "taken back" from
secular unbelief (we can't "take back" what
we never had), it would be much healthier
for us Christians to face reality, holding to
what Jesus himself said in the Gospels: that
Christians should never be surprised at the
hostility with which the gospel would be
greeted by the world, because most people
would fail to believe in him, thereby strongly
implying that, in every age and country,
Christianity would always be a minority faith.
(Rev. Richard T. Zuelch, Letter to the Editor,
Los Angeles Times, August 1995)
The United States is not, by any stretch of
the imagination a Christian nation today, nor
has it ever been, nor was it ever intended to
be. The Religious right (or left) would do well
to stop looking for the Kingdom of Heaven
here on Earth.
.
|
|
| User: "johac" |
|
| Title: Re: US NOT A Christian Nation! |
15 Dec 2007 02:06:38 AM |
|
|
In article <ZJWdnUt_--ANlP7anZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Michelle Malkin" <hypatiab7@comcast.net> wrote:
I found this in a message in the GAM.org list. Hopefully,
some of the fundamentalists invading alt.atheism will
also read it.
http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm
Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of
Church and State
by R.P. Nettelhorst
Introduction
Many well-meaning Christians argue that the
United States was founded by Christian men on
Christian principles. Although well-intentioned,
such sentiment is unfounded. The men who led
the United States in its revolution against
England, who wrote the Declaration of
Independence and put together the Constitution
were not Christians by any stretch of the
imagination. Why do some Christians imagine
these men are Christians? Besides a desperate
desire that it should be so, in a selective
examination of their writings, one can discover
positive statements about God and/or
Christianity.
<snip>
So what? One thing that most, even fundies and righties, agree on is
that the founders who were intelligent people who had no problem
expressing their opinions when called for. If they had intended the USA
to be a 'Christian Nation' wouldn't they have put it in the
Constitution? They didn't.
--
John #1782
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
