Is America a Christian Nation?

The use of Christian religious references in the recent Presidential Inauguration prayers has served to reopen the debate over religion in America's public life. Professor Alan Dershowitz led off with an article strongly objecting that America wasn't a Christian nation; Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby replied that it certainly was. Who is right? Is America a Christian nation? The answer is both yes and no, depending on what one means by the phrase.

When President Harry Truman wrote to Pope Pius XII in 1947 that "This is a Christian nation.", he certainly did not mean that the United States has an official or legally-preferred religion or church. Nor did he mean to slight adherents of non-Christian religions. But he certainly did mean to recognize that this nation, its institutions and laws, was founded on Biblical principles basic to Christianity and to Judaism from which it flowed. As he told an Attorney General's Conference in 1950, "The fundamental basis of this nation's laws was given to Moses on the Mount. The fundamental basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from Exodus and Saint Matthew, from Isaiah and Saint Paul. I don't think we emphasize that enough these days. If we don't have a proper fundamental moral background, we will finally end up with a totalitarian government which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State."

Woodrow Wilson, in his election campaign for President, made the same point: "A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about.... America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the tenets of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture."

The crucial role of Christianity in this nation's formation is not without dispute, although as Revolutionary leader Patrick Henry said: "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship."

John Ashcroft was roundly criticized for his "No King but Jesus" speech at Bob Jones University, but he was only reminding us of our colonial and Revolutionary War heritage. In a 1774 report to King George, the Governor of Boston noted: "If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ." The pre-war Colonial Committees of Correspondence soon made this the American motto: "No King but King Jesus." And this sentiment was carried over into the 1783 peace treaty with Great Britain ending that war, which begins "In the name of the most Holy and Undivided Trinity... ."

Samuel Adams, who has been called 'The Father of the American Revolution' wrote The Rights of the Colonists in 1772, which stated: "The rights of the colonists as Christians...may be best understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of the Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."

It is frequently asserted by those seeking to minimize Christianity's central role in our nation's founding and history, that the founders themselves were not practicing Christians, but rather were Deists or Agnostics. In a 1962

speech to Congress, Senator Robert Byrd noted that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 29 were Anglicans, 16-18 were Calvinists, and among the rest were 2 Methodists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 lapsed Quaker-sometimes Anglican, and only 1 open Deist — Benjamin Franklin who attended all Christian worships and called for public prayer.

Samuel Chase was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a Justice of the US Supreme Court, and, as Chief Justice of the State of Maryland, wrote in 1799 ( Runkel v Winemiller): "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion... ." (Maryland was one of nine States having established churches supported by taxpayers at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; these churches were gradually disestablished, the last in 1833. The Maryland constitution, typical of many of the States, restricted public office to Christians until, in 1851, it was changed to allow Jews who believed in a future state of rewards and punishments to also serve).

Christianity pervaded the laws and the legal system of the States and the federal government. For example, Judge Nathaniel Freeman in 1802 charged Massachusetts Grand Juries as follows: "The laws of the Christian system, as embraced by the Bible, must be respected as of high authority in all our courts... . [Our government] originating in the voluntary compact of a people who in that very instrument profess the Christian religion, it may be considered, not as republic Rome was, a Pagan, but a Christian republic." In 1811 ( People v Ruggles), New York Chief Justice James Kent held: "'...whatever strikes at the root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil government... .' We are a Christian people, and the morality of the country is deeply engrafted upon Christianity... . Christianity in its enlarged sense, as a religion revealed and taught in the Bible, is part and parcel of the law of the land... ." In 1824, the Pennsylvania Supreme court held ( Updegraph v The Commonwealth): Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law...not Christianity founded on any particular religious tenets; not Christianity with an established church, but Christianity with liberty of conscience to all men... ."

Our sixth President, John Quincy Adams said "From the day of the Declaration...they [the American people] were bound by the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of The Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct"

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court said: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their ruler, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." This was said despite the explicit provision in the federal Constitution forbidding any religious test for federal public office.

Justice Joseph Story, who was appointed to the US Supreme Court by President Madison, said in an 1829 speech at Harvard: "There never has been a period of history, in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundation." Story wrote several respected treatises or Commentaries on Constitutional Law, in which are found the following: "Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the [First] Amendment...the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. Any attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation."

"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects and to prevent any national ecclesiastical patronage of the national government".

Justice Story wrote for a unanimous Supreme Court in 1844 ( Vidal v Girard's Executors): "It is also said, and truly that the Christian religion is a part of the common law... ."

In 1854, The United States House of Congress passed a resolution: "The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

During the Civil War, The Senate passed a resolution in 1863: "...devoutly recognizing the supreme authority and just government of Almighty God...encouraged ...to seek Him for succor according to His appointed way, through Jesus Christ, the Senate ...does hereby request the President ...to set aside a day for national prayer and humiliation." President Lincoln promptly issued a Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day, stating "...in compliance with the request and fully concurring in the view of the Senate... ."

The US Supreme Court forbade polygamy in 1890 (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints v United States): "It is contrary to the spirit of Christianity and the civilization which Christianity has produced in the Western world." Two years later, the Court, by Justice Brewer, approvingly cited many of the earlier cases cited above, discussed the history and prominent role of religion in laws, business, customs, and society, and held (Church of the Holy Trinity v United States): "...this is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation... . These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian Nation... .we find everywhere a clear recognition of the same truth."

Congress in essence summarized all this preceding history when it passed a Joint Resolution designating 1983 as The Year of the Bible, stating: "Whereas the Bible, the Word of God, has made a unique contribution in shaping the United States as a distinctive and blessed nation and people; ...deeply held religious convictions springing from the Holy scriptures led to the early settlement of our Nation; ...Biblical teachings inspired concepts of civil government that are contained in our Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States....designate 1983 as a national 'Year of the Bible in recognition of both the formative influence the Bible has been for our Nation, and our national need to study and apply the teachings of the Holy Scriptures". In 1988, a Joint Resolution of Congress declared that the first Thursday in May of each year is to be a National Day of Prayer.

The historical record from the foregoing quotes from past Presidents, leaders, Congressmen, Jurists and court decisions, seems firmly on the side of those claiming that America was born and maintained as a Christian nation whose laws, morals, and customs derive from Christian (and Jewish) scriptures. The opponents of this view, however, point to the first sentence of Article 11 of the obscure Tripoli Treaty of 1797 as seeming conclusive proof that America was never a Christian nation. Before discussing that critical sentence, the treaty itself should be read in context with all of the Barbary treaties.

The Barbary States on the coast of North Africa, comprising the Moslem States of Morocco, Algiers, Tunis, and Tripoli, attacked ships in their coastal waters which would not pay tribute, and held captives for ransom. The European nations had treaties with those states, under which, in exchange for tribute, shipping was protected. After the Revolutionary War, our new nation followed the lead of those European nations and entered into similar treaties. Breach of those treaties by the Barbary nations led to the Barbary wars in 1801.

The first treaty was with Morocco in 1786, negotiated by Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin. It was written in Arabic with an English translation. The treaty language assumes that the world was divided between Christians and Moors (Moslems), e.g. "If we shall be at war with any Christian Power ... .", "... no Vessel whatever belonging either to Moorish or Christian Powers with whom the United States may be at War ... .", "...be their enemies Moors or Christians." These along with numerous references to God, e.g., "In the name of Almighty God,", "... trusting in God ...", "Grace to the only God", "...the servant of God ...", "... whom God preserve ...". are the only references to religion in this treaty of Peace and Friendship.

The next was the Treaty of Peace and Amity with Algiers in 1795,written in Turkish. The only reference to religion was in Article 17 which gave the Consul of the United States "... Liberty to Exercise his Religion in his own House [and] all Slaves of the Same Religion shall not be impeded in going to Said Consul's house at hours of prayer... ." The Consul's house was to function in lieu of a Christian church.

The Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation with Tunis in 1797 was in Turkish with a French translation. It begins "God is infinite.", and refers to the Ottoman Emperor "whose realm may God prosper", and to the President of the United States "... the most distinguished among those who profess the religion of the Messiah, ...." Other than a reference to "the Christian year", there is no further mention of religion.

The Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli was signed in 1796 in Arabic, and was later translated into English by Joel Barlow, United States Consul General at Algiers. Except for the typical phrases "Praise be to God" and "whom God Exalt", there is no reference to religion other than the aforesaid remarkable Article 11, which reads,

"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 (sic) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The treaty, with this language, was submitted to the Senate by President Adams, and was ratified. Thus, opponents of the 'Christian nation' concept point to this seemingly official repudiation of the very idea. Yet the language is less a repudiation of the role of Christianity in the nation's heritage than a reminder that there was no national established church in the United States as there was in the European states with which Tripoli had previously dealt. This provided reassurance to the Moslem Bey and his religious establishment that religion, in of itself, would not be a basis of hostility between the two nations. None of the other similar treaties with the Barbary states, before or after this treaty, including the replacement treaties signed in 1804 after the Barbary Wars, have any language remotely similar.

And there is a deeper mystery: As noted in a footnote at page 1070 of the authoritative treatise by Bevans, Treaties and other International Agreements of the United States of America, citing treaty scholar Hunter Miller.

"While the Barlow translation quoted above has been printed in all official and unofficial treaty collections since 1797, most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion.' does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point" (Emphasis added)

In sum, the phrase was no doubt an invention of Mr. Barlow, who inserted it on his own for his own, unknown, purposes. It was duly ratified without question by the United States Senate, which would no doubt be hesitant to object to any phraseology which was represented as desired by the Bey of Tripoli, with whom the United States wanted peaceful relations. It remains a mystery.

Can America still be called a Christian nation? It is certainly a more religiously pluralistic and diverse society than it was during the 18th, 19th, and early 20th centuries. There are increasing numbers of non-Christians immigrating to this country, and there has been a rapid rise in adherents to Islam among our population. There are millions of Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists, Unitarians, Hindus, Wiccans, Naturists, Agnostics, and Atheists, but Christians comprise roughly 84% of the population. Our constitutional legal system is still based on the Jewish/Christian Bible, not the Koran or other holy book. We still observe Sunday, the Christian Sabbath, as an official holiday. Easter and Christmas still have a special place in the holiday lexicon. The Ten Commandments are still on the wall behind the Supreme Court Justices when they take the bench. Our coins still display the motto "In God We Trust." The US is still firmly part of a Western Civilization fashioned by a Judeo-Christian religious ethic and heritage. Alexis de Tocqueville observed more than a century and a half ago, "There is no country in the world, where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America." That is still true today. We live, not under a Christian government, but in a nation where all are free to practice their particular religion, in accommodation with other religions, and in accordance with the basic principles of the nation, which are Christian in origin. It is in that sense that America may properly be referred to as a Christian nation.

The Establishment Clause provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Amdt. 1. As a textual matter, this Clause probably prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. But perhaps more importantly, the Clause made clear that Congress could not interfere with state establishments, notwithstanding any argument that could be made based on Congress' power under the Necessary and Proper Clause. Nothing in the text of the Clause suggests that it reaches any further. - Justice Thomas on Elk Grove v Newdow

Quite simply, the clause does not suggest that "new" establishments of state religions are prohibited, nor can you present any ruling or any source at all that suggest they do.

Do you have any source at all for your claim that Utah was kept out of the Union based on the question of establishment?

The USSC has made a LOT of bad rulings over the years.

So why don't you just say that the establishment clause outlawed the already established state churches, but that the inept courts failed to understand the wisdom known to anonymous FReeper tpaine who is a greater legal scholar than Justice Marshall, Justice Thomas, and Justice Rehnquist. That position would be no less ridiculous and without historical and legal merit as the position you have now taken.

Your position is rendered further nonsensical by the fact that you consider the term establishment to mean "endorsement" when it is quite clear that the Founders did not intend the First Amendment to restrict endorsements of religion. If the Amendment applied to the states, then why would such endorsements be permissible?

It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion...
The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion. The House of Representatives took up the Northwest Ordinance on the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights; while at that time the Federal Government was of course not bound by draft amendments to the Constitution which had not yet been proposed by Congress, say nothing of ratified by the States, it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals. The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50, reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and provided that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Id., at 52, n. (a). Land grants for schools in the Northwest Territory were not limited to public schools. It was not until 1845 that Congress limited land grants in the new States and Territories to nonsectarian schools...
As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church.(5) It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools. - Justice Rehnquist on Wallace v. Jaffree

Tailgunner Joe wrote:

The Establishment Clause provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Amdt. 1.
As a textual matter, this Clause probably prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. But perhaps more importantly, the Clause made clear that Congress could not interfere with state establishments, notwithstanding any argument that could be made based on Congress' power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Nothing in the text of the Clause suggests that it reaches any further.
- Justice Thomas on Elk Grove v Newdow

Thomas also wrote, inn that same opinion:

"-- the government cannot require a person to "declare his belief in God."
" -- We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person 'to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion' -- "

I agree with his point that; "the Clause made clear that Congress could not interfere with" [existing] "state establishments, -- "

Quite simply, the clause does not suggest that "new" establishments of state religions are prohibited, nor can you present any ruling or any source at all that suggest they do.

States are guaranteed & required to have a Republican Form of Government, which more than suggests, it rules out sectarian forms. -- See Art IV Sec 4.

Do you have any source at all for your claim that Utah was kept out of the Union based on the question of establishment?

The Mormons were trying to establish a sectarian state that allowed polygamy. - Read the history of the issue.

_______________________________

The USSC has made a LOT of bad rulings over the years.

--- Personal attack BS deleted] ---

Your position is rendered further nonsensical by the fact that you consider the term establishment to mean "endorsement" when it is quite clear that the Founders did not intend the First Amendment to restrict endorsements of religion.

Where did I say that 'establishment means endorsement'? More BS.

If the Amendment applied to the states, then why would such endorsements be permissible?

You tell me, - its your straw man.

It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion... The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion. The House of Representatives took up the Northwest Ordinance on the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights; while at that time the Federal Government was of course not bound by draft amendments to the Constitution which had not yet been proposed by Congress, say nothing of ratified by the States, it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals.

The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50, reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and provided that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Id., at 52, n. (a).
Land grants for schools in the Northwest Territory were not limited to public schools. It was not until 1845 that Congress limited land grants in the new States and Territories to nonsectarian schools...

Yep, this makes my point. The old grandfathered state supported religions were dying out. People were realizing that public schools & sectarian religion do not mix.

As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church.(5) It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools. - Justice Rehnquist on Wallace v. Jaffree

Again, you make my case. Forcing sectarian religious education on Indians in an attempt to pacify them was wrong to begin with. Congress finally realized their 'mistake' in 1897, after the Indian wars ended.

I agree with his point that; "the Clause made clear that Congress could not interfere with" [existing] "state establishments

You simply cannot make your case without adding words that were never there, and were never implied. You can provide no source at all for the claim that the "new" establishments were prohibited because no such source exists. You fabricated this claim out of whole cloth.

Your claims are indeed quite ridiculous and completely unsupported by history and jurisprudence. I have produced many source supporting my claims but you have produced none because you cannot.

Endorsements of particular religions were not prohibited by the Constitution. Establishments of State religions were not prohibited either.

States are guaranteed & required to have a Republican Form of Government, which more than suggests, it rules out sectarian forms. -- See Art IV Sec 4.

The word sectarian appears nowhere in the Constitution. Once again, your claims can only be ignorance or lies.

The old grandfathered state supported religions were dying out

These state religions were not "grandfathered" another claim you have fabricated and cannot support with a single source.

The Mormons were trying to establish a sectarian state that allowed polygamy.

They were not attempting to establish a state religion. The issue was polygamy, not establishment.

The truth is that hateful, ignorant bigots like you distorted the law to deprive the practitioners of religions they despise the right to freely practice their faith.

You defend the destructive anti-Catholic "separation" agenda of the KKK member Hugo Black because of your irrational hatred of all religion and your desire to lord over your neighbors and rule them as a "philosopher king." Your tyrannical agenda is incompatible with American liberty and justice and it will soon come to an end.

" -- the Clause made clear that Congress could not interfere with state establishments, notwithstanding any argument that could be made based on Congress' power under the Necessary and Proper Clause.
Nothing in the text of the Clause suggests that it reaches any further."
- Justice Thomas on Elk Grove v Newdow

Thomas also wrote, in that same opinion:

I agree with his point that; "the Clause made clear that Congress could not interfere with" [existing] "state establishments, -- "

Calm yourself. You simply cannot make ~your~ case without attempting to 'hype' what I've written.

Your claims are indeed quite ridiculous and completely unsupported by history and jurisprudence. I have produced many source supporting my claims but you have produced none because you cannot.

Yada yada. Get off your soapbox.

Endorsements of particular religions were not prohibited by the Constitution. Establishments of State religions were not prohibited either.

You are begging the question. -- Silly tactic, but feel free to continue, as it makes you look foolish.

___________________________________

States are guaranteed & required to have a Republican Form of Government, which more than suggests, it rules out sectarian forms. -- See Art IV Sec 4.

The word sectarian appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Who said it did? Another silly distractive comment, which only shows your inability to address the facts. -- State supported religions are not Constitutional under a Republican form of government.

Once again, your claims can only be ignorance or lies.

Once again you are reduced to unsupported personal attack.

______________________________________

The old grandfathered state supported religions were dying out...

These state religions were not "grandfathered" another claim you have fabricated and cannot support with a single source.

Keep begging those questions. -- That tactic is becoming quite amusing.

_____________________________________

The Mormons were trying to establish a sectarian state that allowed polygamy.

They were not attempting to establish a state religion. The issue was polygamy, not establishment.

Nit picking comment. They were trying to establish polygamy as a religious 'right' under a sectarian form of government.

The truth is that hateful, ignorant bigots like you distorted the law to deprive the practitioners of religions they despise the right to freely practice their faith.

Back to attack mode you go. How sad, and stupid of you to think that calling me names will shut me up. -- Or do you want to get the thread pulled or sent to the Backroom?
What's your reasoning behind all the flames, joe? Grandstanding?

Whatever.
You're off in loony tunes land again.

You are begging the question

My claims are supported by Supreme Court rulings. You are the one begging the question by claiming that the BOR applied to the states outlawing "new" establishments of state religions, a claim that is completely unsupportable by either the plain language of the Constitution or any court ruling or legal opinions. You can provide no source to back up your specious claims because there are none.

Who said it did?

You said the Constitution "more than suggests, it rules out sectarian forms." It does not. This is another of your baseless and unsupported claims you just made up. You're a fraud who knows nothing of the law except commie lies.

State supported religions are not Constitutional under a Republican form of government.

If that's so, then why didn't the ratification of the Constitution abolish those state churches which already existed? You cannot answer this because you have tripped yourself up with your web of lies.

The truth is that the First amendment was meant to protect sectarianism and allow each state to decide for itself its own position on establishment, an arrangement rooted in Federalism which an ultra-nationalist such as yourself can only view with hostility.

They were trying to establish polygamy as a religious 'right' under a sectarian form of government.

You base your entire argument that new establishments were prohibited on the case of Utah, and when I point out that Utah did not even attempt to establish a state religion you call it nit-picking? It's not nit-picking, it's demolishing your unsupportable argument.

I call you a liar and a commie because you are one. You are also a coward and a sissy always crying about "take it to the back room."

I'll say what I have to say right here where everyone can see.

Ping me when you find any constitutional opinions or legal rulings at all that support your positions. I won't hold my breath.

You are begging the question

My claims are supported by Supreme Court rulings.

Mine are supported by our Constitution.

You are the one begging the question by claiming that the BOR applied to the states outlawing "new" establishments of state religions, a claim that is completely unsupportable by either the plain language of the Constitution or any court ruling or legal opinions. You can provide no source to back up your specious claims because there are none.

Amusing charge, considering that ~is~ indeed the issue. You are begging that issue, joe, not arguing it.

The word sectarian appears nowhere in the Constitution.

Who said it did? Another silly distractive comment, which only shows your inability to address the facts. -- State supported religions are not Constitutional under a Republican form of government.

You said the Constitution "more than suggests, it rules out sectarian forms." It does not.

Another of your baseless and unsupported claims, joe. The people of all States are quaranteed a Republican Form of Government. This rules out sectarian, like Utah tried to form.

This is another of your baseless and unsupported claims you just made up. You're a fraud who knows nothing of the law except commie lies.

You're getting comical in your desperation joe. -- Have you no honor, 'sir'?

_____________________________________

State supported religions are not Constitutional under a Republican form of government.

Not so. I answered that very question back on an earlier post. Try to keep up.

States cannot establish religions, joe. We fought for freedom from such old world concepts.

___________________________________

They [Utahs Mormons] were trying to establish polygamy as a religious 'right' under a sectarian form of government.

The historical record of Utahs fight for statehood is available for anyone to read. It supports my argument, not yours, joe.

I call you a liar and a commie because you are one. You are also a coward and a sissy always crying about "take it to the back room."

JR has told me to do exactly that, -- or get banned, -- in no uncertain terms, more than once. You might think about that, hotshot.

I'll say what I have to say right here where everyone can see.

Fine. -- Keep it up and you will pay the price. - But I don't intend to get banned over a flame war with a clown like you.

Ping me when you find any constitutional opinions or legal rulings at all that support your positions.
I won't hold my breath.

Actually, thats exactly what you need to do. Try to get a grip on your emotions.

Your claims are not supported by the Constitution.

State supported religions are not Constitutional under a Republican form of government.

If that's so, then why didn't the ratification of the Constitution abolish those state churches which already existed?

I answered that very question back on an earlier post.

No you didn't. You said it was a compromise and the wording led churches to believe their existing establishments would not be threatened. Were they wrong? If not, then how were these state supported churches compatible with your idea of Republican government?

In fact they were not wrong, because the BOR did not outlaw established state churhces, new or otherwise, and you can produce no evidence they did. Your claims are spurious. You invented them to revise history according to your commie delusions.

JR has told me to do exactly that, -- or get banned, -- in no uncertain terms, more than once. You might think about that, hotshot.

That's funny, he's never warned me once. Maybe that's because he would love an excuse to zot an Anti-American commie like you.

The real answer to the question is, "no, America is not a Christian nation. It is a nation founded by Christians built on the beliefs of Christianity that allow for and embrace, with love, all people of the Earth, unlike any other faith."

That's what I thought I was saying. My objection to calling this a Christian Nation is entirely practical.

America is based on the ideals of Christianity, but is not explicitly designed to advance the goals of Jesus Christ. A nation can't do it, only individuals who are committed to advancing Christianity. Christianity was advanced in some of the most hostile and evil nations on earth: Ancient Rome, Soviet Union, China, Sudan, etc.

This view of America of a Christian nation causes laziness in those who are supposed to be doing the job but count on cultural Christianity to do it for them.

Perhaps those that advance this notion should think about whether America is in it's current state because of the laziness of those who tought the same way.

America is based on the ideals of Christianity, but is not explicitly designed to advance the goals of Jesus Christ.

I think my only argument with you is that this is my definition of what a Christian Nation should be.

I think these are the ideals of Jesus Christ. Inform others of the good news and let them make up their own minds. You cannot compel others to understand. All you can do is provide them freedom and access to information. They must come to God on their own. Sounds like the American ideal to me.

Christianity is not an easy course, with pat answers. It is an inner journey that challenges ones preconeptions and prejudices. The American ideal mirrors this truth. We are based on the premise that it's up to us to figure this stuff out, not for some "authority" to dictate it to us. There is only one authority and any human that claims to speak on that authority's behalf is wrong, however well intentioned they may be. There are God's agents here on Earth, but they do not supersede the authority of God. Determining the source of Truth is up to each of us. That is the meaning of "pursuit of happiness" to me.

State supported religions are not Constitutional under a Republican form of government.

If that's so, then why didn't the ratification of the Constitution abolish those state churches which already existed?

I answered that very question back on an earlier post.

No you didn't. You said it was a compromise and the wording led churches to believe their existing establishments would not be threatened. Were they wrong?

No, that's what happened. No threats, -- the State support of churches gradually stopped.

If not, then how were these state supported churches compatible with your idea of Republican government?

They weren't compatible with our Constitutions base principles. But they were grandfathered in, and allowed to fade away.

You have major delusions about commies, joe, not me.

__________________________________

JR has told me to do exactly that, [take it to the back room] -- or get banned, -- in no uncertain terms, more than once. You might think about that, hotshot.

That's funny, he's never warned me once.

Lots of times he doesn't bother. -- Zap, -- and you're gone.

Maybe that's because he would love an excuse to zot an Anti-American commie like you.

Feel free to ask him. Put your convictions where your big mouth is for a change.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.