Was the United States founded on Judeo-Christian principles?

AlwaysRight.org ^ | October 17, 2003

[rightcoast]

Was the United States founded on Judeo-Christian principles?

Is the issue really about what religion our founding fathers practiced? With laws prohibiting many, if not all of the Ten Commandments, I wonder how there can be much doubt where these laws originated. However, I understand that many people believe that these are "universal" ideals, somehow ingrained in man from his conception.

In response to the belief that we are somehow born knowing right from wrong, I ask a simple question. Do you have to teach children to fight over toys, or to share them? I have two children of my own, and I assure you...sharing does not come naturally.

Regardless of whether you subscribe to the Judeo-Christian belief that man was created in the image of God, then man sinned, so now man has fallen and is inherently bent on evil until the return of the Messiah, it is inarguable that we are born with natural tendencies toward conflict and selfishness. These are the exact tendencies our laws were put in place to protect others from.

Michael Savage, in his book The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture poses an interesting question. Many people, usually those on the side of this argument believing that this country was NOT founded on Christian principles, would take religion completely out of society. They see religion as a destructive force, a source of great conflict, and something to be avoided in any enlightened society at all costs.

In many ways, their beliefs are justified, if even accurate. Many wars are fought over religious beliefs. Many conflicts begin over religion. So in that respect, I tend to agree. Religion does breed conflict. However, what would you replace it with?

The natural response is science. I actually subscribed to this belief at one point in my life...prior to becoming a Christian. It seems that the more and more society and science progress, the more we can explain through science. Religion can appear as simply something that weak-minded people use to explain things for which there is currently no explanation. So, again, the natural tendency is to believe that science will eventually replace society's need for religion.

There is one huge problem with this, and this is the crux of my argument. Science does not, and can not, define a moral code for a society. The example that Michael Savage uses is Nazi Germany. Look at the experiments that the scientists performed once they were relieved of the "restraints" of morality. They conducted innumerable atrocities on human beings in the name of science. I assure that similar things will happen in any society that removes the morality that is the fiber of it's laws.

So back to the basic question posed: Is the United States founded on Christian principles? I believe that the morality that we all ascribe to, whether Christian or not, stems from the Bible. There is a great deal of evidence of this throughout history, regardless of the specific religious preferences of our forefathers.

The real question, though, is would we have morals without religion? I think that, given the above example, the answer is no. Look at the morality of the Native Americans compared to the morality of European Christians. Look at the morality of a buddhist compared to the Native American. They are vastly different, given different moral and religious influences. Left to our devices, we will seek out religion to bring some form of order to our societies. Native Americans practiced some pretty atrocious and heinous things, but they still had a religion that defined what is and what is not acceptable.

In the end, I think the question that Christianity has influenced many of our laws has to go unquestioned. It is evident by simply picking up a Bible, and then comparing it to our laws. They are (or were) identical in many places. Given all of the evidence presented above, do you really believe that we would have these morals were it not for the effect Christianity has had on society?

[jwalsh07]

Yes it was, undeniably so.

[hosepipe]

We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments." - James Madison

[rightcoast]

We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments." - James Madison

Great quote! What is the source of this quote, please?

[wardaddy]

Yes....overwhlemingly so.

They were predominately Christian. I doubt anyone back then called it Judeo-Christianity but that's fine with me if saying that today makes us appear more encompassing.

[alloysteel]

Perhaps even more than National Socialism as practiced in Germany 1933-1945, the religion of International Socialism, as practiced 1917-1989, substituted "scientific reason" for the concept of "God". Nor was this the first example of inventing new dieties for exercise of political power. The French Revolution was an earlier example of the same conformity of thinking, deposing a mystical diety for a concrete and defined explanation that appears rational and "scientific".

But hammered out in the codes by which people everywhere live, is the pragmatic knowledge that certain forms of behavior are simply not acceptable. Without these codes, life becomes anarchy, a reprise on "Lord of the Flies".

These various codes may differ, and some have been shown, over time, to be less practical than others. When two differing codes come into contact, the differences are much exaggerated, but almost always, the code that permits some flexibility prevails over the code that is bound by rigid (and brittle) strictures. Winning the war helps, too.

When the Titantic met the iceberg, the iceberg managed to remain afloat. True, the iceberg no longer exists, because it succumbed to the warmer waters of the Atlantic, but that turned out to be a totally separate issue.

[f.Christian]

rm7 ...

To: Hermann the Cherusker

**Your claiming of those Deists as Protestants proves my point that Protestantism doesn't really care what a man believes, and certainly not if he believes in Christ or not, so long as it is not Catholicism. **

Thank you for the opportunity to post this. Note only one Catholic..

Denominational Affiliations of the Framers of the Constitution

Dr. Miles Bradford of the University of Dallas did a study on the denominational classifications that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention accepted for themselves. Contrary to myth, the following list, published by Bradford, indicates that only 3 out of 55 of the framers classified themselves as Deists.

Note: only those Denominations whose Confessions of Faith were expressly Calvinistic at this time have been identified as "Calvinist" denominations. While many "Old-School" Lutherans and "Whitfield" Methodists at this time would have identified themselves with a Calvinistic view of Predestination, their affiliation has for the sake of charity been assumed to be non-Calvinist.

New Hampshire

* John Langdon, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* Nicholas Gilman, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist

Massachusetts

* Elbridge Gerry, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Rufus King, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Caleb Strong, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* Nathaniel Gorham, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist Connecticut
* Roger Sherman, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* William Johnson, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Oliver Ellsworth, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist

New York


* Alexander Hamilton, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* John Lansing, DUTCH REFORMED -- Calvinist
* Robert Yates, DUTCH REFORMED -- Calvinist

New Jersey

* William Patterson, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* William Livingston, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Jonathan Dayton, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* David Brearly, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* William Churchill Houston, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist

Pennsylvania


* Benjamin Franklin, DEIST
* Robert Morris, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James Wilson, DEIST
* Gouverneur Morris, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Thomas Mifflin, QUAKER
* George Clymer, QUAKER
* Thomas FitzSimmons, ROMAN CATHOLIC
* Jared Ingersoll, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist

Delaware

* John Dickinson, QUAKER
* George Read, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Richard Bassett, METHODIST
* Gunning Beford, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Jacod Broom, LUTHERAN

Maryland

* Luther Martin, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Daniel Carroll, ROMAN CATHOLIC
* John Mercer, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James McHenry, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Daniel Jennifer, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

Virginia


* George Washington, EPISCOPALIAN (Non-Communicant)
* James Madison, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* George Mason, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Edmund Randolph, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James Blair, Jr., EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* James McClung, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* George Wythe, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

North Carolina

* William Davie, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Hugh Williamson, DEIST
* William Blount, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Alexander Martin, PRESBYTERIAN -- Calvinist
* Richard Spaight, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

South Carolina

* John Rutledge, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Charles Pinckney, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Pierce Butler, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* Charles Pinckney, III, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist

Georgia

* Abraham Baldwin, CONGREGATIONALIST -- Calvinist
* William Leigh Pierce, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* William Houstoun, EPISCOPALIAN -- Calvinist
* William Few, METHODIST

327 posted on 09/30/2003 9:47 PM PDT by RnMomof7

[evad]

The real question, though, is would we have morals without religion? I think that, given the above example, the answer is no.

If you mean "organized" religion(s) then I would categorically disagree with your premise.

I believe organized religion(s) to be the bane of human existence and the cause of endless misery.

Now, if you want to talk of belief in God or the teachings of the Bible, that's a different story.

[ThirdEye]

Actually.... not so.

They were prodominantly NOT Christian. In fact, much of what they believed came from a objective look at religion and what it had done to the world.

What were they you ask? Deists. http://www.deism.org/

[jwalsh07]

I believe organized religion(s) to be the bane of human existence and the cause of endless misery.

Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, Karl Marx, Jesse Ventura and a host of others would take agree with your statement.

[jwalsh07]

You're dreaming.

[cwb]

"In many ways, their beliefs are justified, if even accurate. Many wars are fought over religious beliefs. Many conflicts begin over religion. So in that respect, I tend to agree. Religion does breed conflict. However, what would you replace it with?"

IMHO, this is one of the biggest red-heerings used to assault religion. While there is no-doubt a bloody history that exists when it comes to religion, it is not the Faith that is at fault but those who would use that Faith to advance a political agenda. Religion and one's beliefs were one of the easiest ways to consolidate power to advance and agenda of control.

Unfortunately, religion is no different than any other belief, that brings together people with common cause to advance that agenda. The secular/anti-religious movement is as much a religion as any faith-based movement. It is also no different from those who believe in socialism and communism, as they advance agenda's based on their own philosophical beliefs. While they may not have a Diety they look to for wisdom, they themselves replace that Diety with man...and the rule of State.

Interestingly, with as much blood that has been spilled in the name of religion, even more has been spilled in the name of these pseudo-religions that spite God. It is also ironic, that it has been Man that has corrupted these Faith-based ideals and not the belief, itself. It has been those, who have used the power of religion and perverted these beiefs to advance their own causes. We saw this with the early Roman Catholic Church and Popes as they used religion to influence the governance of foreign countries...just as we see this being done in Islam, today. But again, I say that it is not the Faith that is at fault but those who would abuse that Faith. While you may be able to get rid of God, you would still not get rid of the violence that "Man" is responsible for. We would just find a different reason to fight each other.

[Batrachian]

All societies evolve over time, but most on this forum would agree that our society has evolved in ways that are not desireable. We believe in the natural law that is enumerated in the Ten Commandments, and we know that the founding documents of our nation are premised on those laws. The real question is why we stood idly by, or if we fought, it was insufficient, and we watched the roots of our society torn from the ground and left to wither, and our enemies triumphed.

[ThirdEye]

Sometimes, I wonder if I am.

People have given up on discussion and the evolution of ideas and instead simply hold on to the beliefs they've always had...ie taught through their environment. It's made it quiet difficult for me to grow through intelligent conversation with others. Maybe that's why I predict I will never be anything by agnostic. Aethesist and fundementalists alike... ruining the expansion of ideas and knowledge.

Our founding fathers represented people who were trying to reach a new level of reason.

[evad]

Pol Pot, Josef Stalin, Chairman Mao, Karl Marx, Jesse Ventura and a host of others would take agree with your statement.

Taken out of context, as you did, I'm sure they would.

However, I seriously doubt they would have agreed with the entire statement taken in context.

[f.Christian]

Reason vs reality ... insanity !

[FreedomSurge]

I do not think the republic was founded on religious values. I think the constition came out of the founders' understanding of what made the Roman Republic work and fail and of what worked in the English parliment. The nation's government was formed more on Roman and English values than on any religious values.

If you want to see some scary parallels to the functioning of the current political scene, read "Livys - History of Early Rome."

[jwalsh07]

Our founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian. Denying that does not advance rational discourse, it hinders it. Any cursory reading of the history of this nation makes it clear that the founding fathers were overwhelmingly Christian.

Yes Jefferson was a deist at one time in his life and yes he rewrote the Bible to accord with his belief system at that time.

But Thomas Jefferson was one man. Almost all of the remaining founders were Christian.

The evidence is quite clear on that and running around yelling "rational" will never change that fact.

Madison offered and passed a bill with criminal liability for breaking the sabbath.

Washington prayed for divine intervention, a notion unfamiliar to deists.

Fisher Ames, author of the 1st Amendment lived and worshipped in MAssachusetts which had a state established religion backed by AMes.

These things are not conjecture, they are facts.

[VOA]

What were they you ask? Deists.

Some were. And some were marginal Deists. Speaking of which...
Where was Thomas Jefferson on the Sunday morning following his writing of the
"separation of church and state" letter to the Danbury Baptists?