Is the US "a Christian country"? And

"The third" in your quote is the 10 Commandments. They exist all over the place for two reasons: 1) they represent the first codified law in human history (according to the founders, some of whom did not know about the Code of Hammurabi); and 2) they form the basis of the "Laws of Nature's God" as expressed in the Declaration of Independence. It wasn't thought necessary to duplicate the laws of "Nature's God" other than to prescribe punishment for certain things.

The 10 Commandments are held as emmanating from God to the Prophet Moses by Muslims, Christians and Jews, as well as B'ahais, followers of the Bab, and other more modern sects. There were no recorded Buddhists or Hindus in the US that I can find before the mid-1800s. Probably were some, but I can't find a record of them. But I doubt they would get too worked up by seeing them. Only modern anti-religious folks are "offended" when they see them.

 

I don't know if I'd go as far to say "many" may be innocent. Thing is, until we can read minds there is always going to be some margin of error, it's just an argument of how much you can tolerate...

 

There are at least three ways to determine a country's religious leanings:

Sociologically ... if the majority of the people are of a religion, then you can say that country is of that religion

Culturally ... if that country is steeped in a long history associated with a certain denomination or sect, it is often referred to as a country of that religion

Legally .... the country declares itself allied with a certain religion officially, even if the people are not observant.

All three are valid for normal discussion. For instance, I think that Italy disestablished religion in the mid-1900s, but it wouldn't be surprising to hear people say that "Italy is a Catholic country". Same with France. England has not disestablished religion, and the Queen is still the leader of the Church of England, and is still "legally" a country with an established church.

Christians that speak of America being a "Christian country" at the founding are speaking in the sociological sense (nearly everyone in the country at the time was a Christian). The culture was also Christian, as evidenced by the laws and writings of the people at the time, and the practices of the citizens (Sunday "sabbath" laws, etc.) They also think of America today as, at least nominally, culturally Christian, even though they fear the culture is quickly losing its Christian influence ("Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas", etc.)

People objecting to the idea of a "Christian country" are thinking in the legal sense, and, today at least, in the cultural sense as no longer being steeped in Christian cultural values. They also tend to see the bad decisions made by Americans based on Christianity, such as slavery, treatment of the Native Americans, etc., as being due to too much Christian influence on the culture. So even they admit, when criticizing the horrors done by religion, that America was, culturally, a "Christian nation" of sorts. They just don't want the folks that want official ties to a state religion to win the argument.

 

Yes, I do. Because the official US Government lsiting of the treaty has the footnote, historians are not divided on the issue that it is an "insertion", but only divided on the cause of the insertion ("joke" or "error" being the two most common explanations). Yet you present it as "fact", even highlighting the questioned phrase, without warning the reader of the questionable nature of the very words you are basing your assertion on. I consider that an error in the least (if you didn't know the questionable nature of the phrase) or intellectual dishonesty (if you did and just didn't alert the reader to it).

I'll leave it to others to go to the library and see the proof for themselves, in the official, published document with the footnote.

 

Dan,
You rock! Your original post and response to the "French alteration" post were awesome--SLAAMMMDUNK!
Just wanted to express my appreciation to you in teaching me (and others, I hope) something new and backing it up with solid references.
We need more posters like you, not just on PriusChat but everywhere.

 

Some may say that one is too "many".

 

OK, this is just getting ridiculous. You keep refering to a footnote which doesn't appear to exist in the Senate records. Do you dispute the following points?

1) Joel Barlow provided a translation (whether accurate or not) in English of the original treaty as negotiated with Tripoli.
2) That translation, in English, including the stated text of Article Eleven, was read aloud to the United States Senate on May 26th, 1797.
3) That translation was read into the Senate record, as shown in the official congressional record cited in my earlier post (a scanned document from the Library of Congress).
4) The United States Senate unanimously approved the treaty text as described in the official record, including Article Eleven as described in the earlier post.
5) President John Adams, who according to the Senate record, presented the treaty to Congress, later signed it.

If you can't dispute those points, you have no argument... and you can't really dispute solid points.

It doesn't matter if Barlow mistranslated part of the treaty (which he may have), because the official treaty always was the English version, the one that the Senate ratified and the President signed. The United States generally doesn't recognize treaties in a foreign language. The Senate heard the English version of the treaty, and voted on it as such. The debate here is whether or not the Senate approved of a treaty that included a statement saying essentially that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation.

So, in 1797, our Senate unanimously approved the text of Article Eleven. That CAN NOT be disputed. If you have some evidence to suggest that the Congressional Record is incorrect, or that the Senate actually voted for a different treaty, or that the text of the treaty was altered, please bring it forward.

Now, on a different note, I've been keeping this civil, but it is in very bad form to accuse someone of deliberately misleading readers (you call it "intellectual dishonesty"). So far, my points and facts have been rock solid, and yours have been nonexistant. So, in my best civil tone, either produce evidence to back up your assertions, or stop participating in the argument. Don't give me that
"I'll leave it to others to go to the library and see the proof for themselves" excuse. Present your proof so that we all can see it.

I welcome a good discussion, but have little patience for those who make statements they can't back up with solid evidence.

Dan

 

The "exist all over the place" phrase was in the original post ... it didn't originate from me. However, it is in the Supreme Court, and on many, many public courthouse buildings. I think that was the original poster's point. I was pointing out that there's a non-religious reason for the 10 Commandments to be culturally important.

Natural Law ... the phrase "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" is in the Declaration, and was common language of the time. See the book "American Scripture" by Meier, a wonderful history of the origin and meanings of the Declaration (she's at Harvard or Yale; its not an "out of the mainstream" book). The concept of Natural Law was an enlightenment principle and can be found in writings of people like Locke prior to our founding era. The concept of Natural Law was important to negating the concept of "divine right of kings".

Muslims, including the ones who work for me, have a great respect for Moses and the 10 Commandments. They do a better job of keeping them than I do, frankly. They do have a different understanding of God than I do, and they differ in just who is the rightful heir to be "chosen", but they are certainly not offended by display of the 10 Commandments.

The "non-religious" Americans you speak of are counted that way because they were on the frontier, and did not attend church. But in fact, if you read books like "The Unknown American Revolution" by Gary Nash (a prof at UCLA, again, not a "Christian America" fringe author), you will find that the frontier was a hotbed of evangelical fervor, and one of the engines of the Revolution.

The non-religious person's reaction to the incorrect "Christian America" statements of some of my more conservative Christian brothers is equally incorrect. That's my main point.

I would think you non-religious folks would seize on the idea that it was not atheists who disestablished religion, but the religious. They saw the bad effects of the co-mingling of church and state first hand.

 

It appears all of your research on this issue has been on the Internet, and you have either not gotten the full story, or you are obfuscating the fact that the phrase you highlighted has never been considered correct. I have researched this particular phrase throughly.

If you read my other posts, you will see that I actually agree with the phrase, but I'm a stickler in these arguments for sticking to the whole truth. The sticking point is the footnote from the official source that modifies it, and puts it into doubt. This quote simply cannot be used as a "proof" that the founders disestablished religion (for that, simply look to the Constitution itself.) The Senate voted on the treaty with the footnote clarifying the awkward phrase. The footnote is vitally important. Guys like David Barton would eat you alive on this one. It is one of their favorite "straw men".

I am leaving early in the morning and will be unable to get to the library until after the 13th. If I can't find my notes on this tonight (I have a copy of the official publication's page on this somewhere) I will go the library and scan it in. However, I encourage people to take a look themselves. This is easy to resolve.

 

Well, I don't see the footnote you speak of in the Senate record at all, but look forward to your response on the 13th after you get back from the library. Of course, David Barton is less reliable than Wikipedia, so I assume you have an official source... some kind of government document as you state?

Just to be clear, we are talking about an official footnote in the treaty, as it was ratified by the Senate, essentially stating that the Senate did not vote to approve that particular statement, article eleven, right?

Dan

 

I can't find the photocopy, so I'll have to wait until after the 13th. As I remember it, and my recollection could be incomplete or inaccurate since its been 15 years since I researched it, the footnote identifies the phrase as questionable at least (it may have been as strong as saying it was "spurious", but I'll have to wait until I get a look at it again). The footnote is in the "green books" ... the official transcripts of the treaties of the US, printed by the Government Printing Office.

Barton is not authoritative at all, and its because he also provides quotes out of context and without adequate explanation (but for the other side, obviously).

But, Barton is very persuasive on this kind of thing, and if you get into a "war of quotes" with his supporters, you'll find they have thousands of them, including majority Supreme Court decisions where that narrative says "In as much as this is a Christian country ..." That's the standard tactic of the Christian Reconstructionists (you probably know that the majority language in a Supreme Court decision does not carry the force of law, but provides clarification of the actual decision ... the Justice in question ... Frankfurter, I think ... was speaking of the country in the sociological and cultural sense, and had other decisions that clearly upheld the concept of separation. But this clarification isn't given by Barton or the others, and it drives me up the wall).

I maintain that disestablishment was done on purpose, by religious guys as well as a few non-religious, and that the progression of laws and policies by deeply religious men were toward more disestablishment rather than less. The founders ... most of them at least ... worked hard to continue the progress toward disestablishment even on the state level, through legislatures, and before Jefferson and Adams died, all but one state had severed ties with their churches. THAT's a much more powerful argument of the original intent of the founders; they did it on a federal level, and then back home on a state level.

Here's how Article 11 is attacked, and why it is such a poor argument. The Reconstructionists will point out that it is not in the exisiting copy of the Arabic document, that Barlow was suspected of inserting it, that the political situation of the time (i.e., the Barbary pirates affecting trade), etc. made the obvious insertion of less importance than ratifying the imperfect treaty and saving lives and then correcting it later. And the trump card that no one mentions is that they did just that, when the treaty was renegotiated and "Article 11" was dropped. The questionable nature of the original, the footnote in the government printed copy, and the fact that the re-negotiation of the treaty dropped the article is a pretty persuasive argument.

Then the Reconstructionists will go on to show just how many of the 200 or so men considered founders were orthodox members of Christian churches (and except for just a few, they had to be as public service had a religious means test prior to the Revolution). The "separationist's case" starts to fall apart, because along with the questionable Article 11, they almost always tout that the founders were "Deists, not Christians".

 

Ouch! My Jewish friends will be insulted. Judiasm is much more "liberal" in this sense than conservative Christianity, and G*d is "blamed" for everything. They have much less reliance on an evil devil that does bad stuff and a good God that does good stuff. The phrase often heard at funerals is from the OT: "The lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord". Life may be great or life may suck, but whatever state you are in, G*d has allowed it to be. But it is "self focused" rather than a judgement flung at you; they wouldn't tell their buddy that G*d was punishing him. It isn't about reward and punishment, its more about the "tapestry of life".

The black and white nature of Christian theology may be due more to Greek influence on the early Christians than Jewish. In more modern times, the rise of Christian fundamentalism in the late 1800's (date may be wrong) emphasized that kind of thinking. The "rapture theology" today aggravates it even more, because Jesus will come in secret and "snatch up" the REALLY real believers and save them from famine and pestilence, while all the bad guys will suffer here on earth with boils and horrible persecution if they convert during the "great tribulation". Then Jesus comes back again, and wipes them all out. I'd like to see one of the fat happy modern preachers explain that theology to the Apostle Peter as he was crucified upside down in Rome. (As you can probably tell, I think its heresy).

 

I understand life is life, but I expect they are trying to protect the innocent that get killed without choice verses killing those who have disregarded others lives and a payback or in the name of justice and equality.

 

See, and I would have expected those members of the religious right who consider what is essentually a growth in a organic Petri dish to be an actual human being, to find that human being to be not innocent, because without baptism the lump of tissue would be guilty of Original Sin. Myself, I don't consider a smear of cells to be a human being any more than I consider the glint in the eyes of an aroused sexual partner to be a human being, so I would consider it to beyond any question of innocent or not innocent until it is born into the world and actually becomes a human being (and of course, I don't put much stock in the notion of sin).

Killing other human beings (who may indeed even be innocent of the charges against them), however, is in direct in opposition to the religious teachings of the religious right, as is the spirit of payback and vengeance under which capital punishment is sought. This is the opposite of how Jesus asked people to live. But most of them won't let that stop them. I sometimes wonder though, if nonetheless the religious right really does understand that how they are behaving is wrong.

I think what it comes down to fundamentally, is that there are some people who feel rotten deep on the inside and it causes them to have an enormous need to feel holier than thou on the outside. And this often takes the form of intolerance for others. They love to point their fingers at women whose private reproductive choices they disagree with, and they lust for the opportunity to throw stones at people in the public square who have been judged guilty of terrible things because they just might be more rotten examples of human beings than they feel they themselves are deep inside, and they hope to feel good by comparison.

So when the religious right points their accusatory fingers at others, I think they are really pointing to something inside themselves which is broken, and yet they can't summon up the courage to escape the artificial realities that they have created for themselves to interact on a deeper and meaningful level with other who exist in the real world. Perhaps that is why they reject evolution--because it's not really working for them, in fact they are almost backsliding evolutionarily.

 

It's sad the influence these Churches and the AFA have our society.

One of the greatest TV shows that I've seen in a long time, Book of Daniel, was successfully shut down due to the AFA spreading false rumors about the show. I would guess most of the people agreeing with them never watched the show.

Andy

 

Not sure you understand the concept of original sin ... it's not a "guilt" thing as much as it is an "infection" thing.

For most Christians, all human life is valuable and worthy of protection. But some people commit crimes that have, as their punishment, the ultimate penalty. It is not inconsistent to hold that innocent life should be protected, but people who commit certain crimes should be punished.

I suspect you believe that all men should be free, but if a man commits a heinous crime, he should lose his freedom. Are you a hypocrite for asserting all men should be free but wishing the criminal be locked up? No.