America. A Christian nation?

[DannyM]

Influence. Yes. Not arguing that. If you want to say the USA is influenced by Christianity, you are going to get no argument from me.

It was founded by Christians. It's fundamental principle is Christian. It's population is overwhelmingly Christian. I call America a Christian nation.

Thomas Paine was blatantly anti-Christian. He is oft referred to as the "Father of the American Revolution."
I didn't say Paine influenced Jeffereson in writing "one" particular sentence. Paine's "Common Sense", status and influence as a FF, is well documented in US history.
http://www.sullivan-county.com/deism/

I don't care what Thomas Paine's religious beliefs were. The fact is that any notion he might have had of equal dignity among men had come *directly* from Christianity. From where do you think modern atheists get their sense of morality?

Jefferson was asserting the morality of equality among men.

Jefferson did not pen the DOI alone. Although the main author, it was heavily influenced and John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Robert R. Livingston and Roger Sherman. Along with the entire assembly of Congress. No question the DOI asserts equality. That's agreed. And no question it acknowledges a creator. Those are indisputable facts. For the umpteenth time, I'm not arguing those facts with you.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams.

The genius here needs to be recognised and applauded, for goodness sake.

Agreed. I'm insulted that you would imply that I am not. That is not the topic at hand. I agree with the genius of these men. They were genius NOT to attempt to establish a Christian nation. They new, that earthly hands would` only corrupt what is divine. Only Christ Himself can produce such a Kingdom. The government of men, no matter how impressive, will fail. Christ's government will never fail. There is a great quote by a FF regarding such. I wish I could find it.

I agree. Sort of. The genius was not establishing a theocracy. This takes nothing away from Christianity's influence.

indeed, the Constitution rightly recognises and salutes the DOI as being its base.

It does? I've read the constitution and I only remember that it acknowledges US independence regarding the date. The DOI was actually signed before the war had been barely started, much less won. It ended in 1783. I would agree that it is foundational, as it would be impossible to have a constitution, if independence had not been obtained.

The Constitution recognises the DOI- see my quote.

The FF's were clever. They sought to exclude all theological differences so that they could proceed with true democracy and run the country appropriately.

Yes, they established democracy. Actually, if we want to nit pick we'd say they established a republic. The USA is a DEMOCRATIC nation. Either way, I agree, they excluded all theological differences. They did this by not establishing a country of any religion. Total religious freedom.

Exactly. Beautiful isn't it?

"Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."

Great quote. But what does it have to do with our topic. If the USA was a 'Christian' nation, then why would he have to endorse religion. The fact is that the founding documents to not establish any religious adherance. The DOI ackowledges a 'creator.' The Constitution recognizes no religion or diety of any kind. That is a fact my friend.

It shows the mindset of Washington. Why would the Constitution not recognising one particular religion or deity negate its Christian underbelly? We have agreed, Jlay, that the FF's showed their ingenuity by swerving such things and thus negating the possibility of religious catastrophe.

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not violated but with His wrath?"

Yep, he said it. Read it a little closer. Guess what he didn't say it in? The DOI.

But it shows the mind-set of Jefferson, the leading author of the DOI.

At this point, I'd like to tentatively suggest that we are agreeing on much, Jlay. Our differences reside in what should or should not constitute a Christian nation. If this is all we differ over, then I think I'd like to leave it and that, totally respecting your opinion.

[DannyM]

Danny, I think England was and is nominally Christian just like America. Again, we disagree about that, I know.

Rick, if you think that then I respect that. But you couldn't be too much further from the truth. In 17th century England religion was far more important than it is today. It was a vital part of everyday life. There was certainly very little toleration in matters of religion (by law everybody was supposed to belong to the Church of England). In practice, however, there were many Roman Catholics, especially in the Northwest. The point is that, in spite of the thocratic situation in 17th century England, religion and religious freedom was important to practically the entire nation. I have no idea how you have come to believe that England was only nominally Christian, but I believe you to be entirely wrong.

[RickD]

Danny, I think England was and is nominally Christian just like America. Again, we disagree about that, I know.

Rick, if you think that then I respect that. But you couldn't be too much further from the truth. In 17th century England religion was far more important than it is today. It was a vital part of everyday life. There was certainly very little toleration in matters of religion (by law everybody was supposed to belong to the Church of England). In practice, however, there were many Roman Catholics, especially in the Northwest. The point is that, in spite of the thocratic situation in 17th century England, religion and religious freedom was important to practically the entire nation. I have no idea how you have come to believe that England was only nominally Christian, but I believe you to be entirely wrong.

Danny, I would have assumed you would believe that, because you think I'm wrong in my opinion that America is nominally Christian as well. So, I guess we are beating a dead horse again.

[DannyM]

Danny, I think England was and is nominally Christian just like America. Again, we disagree about that, I know.

Rick, if you think that then I respect that. But you couldn't be too much further from the truth. In 17th century England religion was far more important than it is today. It was a vital part of everyday life. There was certainly very little toleration in matters of religion (by law everybody was supposed to belong to the Church of England). In practice, however, there were many Roman Catholics, especially in the Northwest. The point is that, in spite of the thocratic situation in 17th century England, religion and religious freedom was important to practically the entire nation. I have no idea how you have come to believe that England was only nominally Christian, but I believe you to be entirely wrong.

Danny, I would have assumed you would believe that, because you think I'm wrong in my opinion that America is nominally Christian as well. So, I guess we are beating a dead horse again.

Rick, but I'm still waiting for you to give me a reason for why you believe that 17th century England was only nominally Christian...

[RickD]

Danny, I think England was and is nominally Christian just like America. Again, we disagree about that, I know.

Rick, if you think that then I respect that. But you couldn't be too much further from the truth. In 17th century England religion was far more important than it is today. It was a vital part of everyday life. There was certainly very little toleration in matters of religion (by law everybody was supposed to belong to the Church of England). In practice, however, there were many Roman Catholics, especially in the Northwest. The point is that, in spite of the thocratic situation in 17th century England, religion and religious freedom was important to practically the entire nation. I have no idea how you have come to believe that England was only nominally Christian, but I believe you to be entirely wrong.

Danny, I would have assumed you would believe that, because you think I'm wrong in my opinion that America is nominally Christian as well. So, I guess we are beating a dead horse again.

Rick, but I'm still waiting for you to give me a reason for why you believe that 17th century England was only nominally Christian...

The same reason I believe America is nominally Christian.

[jlay]

I have no idea how you have come to believe that England was only nominally Christian, but I believe you to be entirely wrong.

Well I can certainly see Rick's point.

Christianity coerced is not Christianity at all. I would, and Rick would probably concur that you can't have a 'Christian' nation, for the simple reason that it is not possible asside from the return of Christ ushering in his Kingdom on earth. So, when he uses the word nominal, it rings true to me.
If you were to say that 17th century England was a religious nation, I would say, "here, here!" A Christian nation? I would agree with Rick.

I certainly understand what Danny and others are trying to argue, and why?

No one can deny that there was Christian influence in the founding of America. But also, no one can argue that Christianity was not the primary driving force for independence. The DOI list multiple grievances for independence and not one of them remotely enlist the idea of Religion of any faith. NOT ONE. None of the founding documents seek to prosyletize, convert, or win anyone to a particular faith. It doesn't seek to advance the Kingdom of God, or establish Chistianity as "The Religion" of the United States. In fact the Constituition does the opposite.

I don't care what Thomas Paine's religious beliefs were. The fact is that any notion he might have had of equal dignity among men had come *directly* from Christianity. From where do you think modern atheists get their sense of morality?

OK, so how does this prove that the USA was a Christian nation? You are saying influence. And I have agreed with influence until I am blue in the face. Paine influenced, and was not Christian. As were other FFs. Some were Christian and influenced, and some were not. I can also list several influences on the DOI, the constitution, and the war for independence that have ZERO Christian motiviations. Christianity was an influence. One. It was not the exclusive influence. And therefore influence doesn't establish what something is or isn't. It might shape and effect what something is, but it isn't the thing itself.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

This isn't in the Constitution. And it also says, religious people. There are billions of religious peopel who are not Christian. BTW, there are millions of immoral and religious people who are governed by the Constitution. That my friend is a fact.

The Constitution recognises the DOI- see my quote.

OK, so other than the date, please paste me something from the DOI, that does such. Quoting yourself is not quoting the Constitution.

It shows the mindset of Washington.

Yes, it does.

But it shows the mind-set of Jefferson, the leading author of the DOI.

Sure, but I can also list several quotes from TJ that are critical of Christianity.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Every word of lines 10-28 is consistent with Christianity.

Hello.
Something being consistent with Christianity doesn't make it Christian.

Hello? I agree with you, jlay!. America is NOT a Christian nation, A Christian nation would not abort babies, produce pornography, have hate-filled groups like the KKK, call perversions of all types «personal preferences» or have year-after-year budget deficits, et al.

I have said, over, and over and over and over, that I believe the FFs were influenced by their Christian heritage. What more do I have to say. What many here have failed to do, is provide empirical evidence that the influence of Christian thinking, makes the USA a Christian nation. Yes, the FFs were influenced by Christianity. So was Great Britain, which they sought independence from.

Agreed. The USA is a nominally Christian nation, by virtue of its culture and heritage and nothing else. If the USA were a person, it would be guaranteed a ticket straight to hell. No return.

Atheism (in any of its putrid forms) would never, ever, ever have produced such a nation as the USA.


Agreed. Neither would a litany of other religious or non-religious ideologies.

Indeed, only a nominally Christian culture can produce a certain type of nation where personal liberties, freedom of thought and respect for others
combine to afford their citizens wealth and leisure. (All this good stuff has lasted a couple of centuries...so far...thank God the end is near!)

FL

[DannyM]

Well I can certainly see Rick's point.

What point? Rick hasn't made a point, Jlay. He's merely said that 17th century England was only nominally Christian, without giving a single word to explain why he believes this. So what do you see?

Christianity coerced is not Christianity at all. I would, and Rick would probably concur that you can't have a 'Christian' nation, for the simple reason that it is not possible asside from the return of Christ ushering in his Kingdom on earth. So, when he uses the word nominal, it rings true to me.
If you were to say that 17th century England was a religious nation, I would say, "here, here!" A Christian nation? I would agree with Rick.

This is to blindly miss the point. In spite of the government and the church hierarchy, the people of England wanted to worship freely and in whatever form they chose. A Christianity coerced- the precise term would be "Anglicanism coerced"- tells you *nothing* about the religious aspirations of Christian England. What you're effectively saying is that, because of an imposed theocracy, the citizens must have been non-Christian in the first place; absolutely baffling logic! Non-Anglican Protestants and Catholics were outcasts for much of the 17th century. Many Puritans were forced or chose to emigrate. Those who remained formed a powerful element within the parliamentarian party that defeated Charles I in the English Civil War. After the war the Puritans remained dominant in England until 1660, but they quarreled among themselves (Presbyterian dominance gave way to Independent, or congregational, control under Cromwell) and proved even more intolerant than the old hierarchy. The restoration of the monarchy (1660) also restored Anglicanism, and the Puritan clergy were expelled from the Church of England under the terms of the Act of Uniformity (1662). This is a clear indictment of a state run church. Even the Puritans succumbed to in-fighting and intolerance. England was not a Christian nation because of a government/church hierarchy; England was a Christian nation because of the beliefs and principles of its people.

Also, we're back to the assumption that your definition of a Christian nation is right. Pretty difficult to proceed under these circumstances. Yet you're willing to call 17th century England a "religious nation"... Since the overwhelming religion back then was Christian why don't you just call it a Christian nation, if you're prepared to call it a religious one?

No one can deny that there was Christian influence in the founding of America. But also, no one can argue that Christianity was not the primary driving force for independence. The DOI list multiple grievances for independence and not one of them remotely enlist the idea of Religion of any faith. NOT ONE. None of the founding documents seek to prosyletize, convert, or win anyone to a particular faith. It doesn't seek to advance the Kingdom of God, or establish Chistianity as "The Religion" of the United States. In fact the Constituition does the opposite.

Again, you're either not reading me or are completely missing the point. Where have I said that ONE religious faith is required for a nation to be a Christian nation? I've repeatedly praised the tolerance of a Christian nation like America when welcoming other faiths and creeds. I've also - and I'm baffled that I have to repeat this - stated that the FF's cleverly set the scene where theological differtence would not impede the Costitution. They clearly learned from England's mistakes.

OK, so how does this prove that the USA was a Christian nation? You are saying influence. And I have agreed with influence until I am blue in the face. Paine influenced, and was not Christian. As were other FFs. Some were Christian and influenced, and some were not. I can also list several influences on the DOI, the constitution, and the war for independence that have ZERO Christian motiviations. Christianity was an influence. One. It was not the exclusive influence. And therefore influence doesn't establish what something is or isn't. It might shape and effect what something is, but it isn't the thing itself.

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This is in the very opening of the DOI. I've put to bed the silly idea that this is not fundamentally a Christian principle. The very opening statement in the very document that declares independence tells you of a very fundamental Christian principle at its foundation.

This isn't in the Constitution. And it also says, religious people. There are billions of religious peopel who are not Christian. BTW, there are millions of immoral and religious people who are governed by the Constitution. That my friend is a fact.

So what? It still tells you the thoughts of a man who was involved. But I guess we'll just disregard unhelpful nonsense like that ...

Is that a fact, Jlay? If that's a fact then do you care to show me the evidence, rather than just words? You say "millions"- how many millions?

The Constitution recognises the DOI- see my quote.

OK, so other than the date, please paste me something from the DOI, that does such. Quoting yourself is not quoting the Constitution.

I'm not quoting myself, I'm quoting the Constitution. I've quoted the Constitution twice now. Here's the third time:

"ARTICLE VII

The ratification of the conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the establishment of this constitution between the States so ratifying the same.

Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our Names."

Is this not the Constitution recognising the Declaration? "...and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth..." recognises the Declaration as the foundation for the Constitution.

Sure, but I can also list several quotes from TJ that are critical of Christianity.

I'm sure he did. But Jefferson was aware of man's right to dignity and his equality among men.

[jlay]

What point? Rick hasn't made a point, Jlay. He's merely said that 17th century England was only nominally Christian, without giving a single word to explain why he believes this. So what do you see?

I guess I see what he is talking about.
What makes a nation Christian? Let me ask it by asking this. What made Israel a Hebrew nation? Was it a man made government? Nope. It was the founding documents, a covenant, which were forged in the tenets of their religious faith, by the breathe of God himself.

Jesus was VERY specific about his Kingdom. "My Kingdom is NOT of this world." And,"the gates of Hell will NOT prevail against it." Does that sound like America? As genius as many of those men were, this so called Christian nation, did not consider woman to be citizens, approved of slavery, and funded atrocities against its native inhabitants.

The government of 17th century England was corrupt. It was founded by the corrupt hands of man. And thus it perverted the church. The church was little more than a pawn used to gain and or maintain authority. If the majority of the population was genuinely Christian, which we have no way of knowing, then it was a nation composed of mainly Christians. Why don't you ask Charles Spurgeon, or John Wesley if it was a Christian nation.
4th century Rome was a nominally Christian naiton. Unless you think Christians can be made by an Emperor waving his scepter and declaring it as such.

This is to blindly miss the point. In spite of the government and the church hierarchy, the people of England wanted to worship freely and in whatever form they chose. A Christianity coerced- the precise term would be "Anglicanism coerced"- tells you *nothing* about the religious aspirations of Christian England.

You are right, but that is not my point, nor do I think it is Ricks. The point is that the GOVERNMENT was nominally Christian. It called itself Christian. But what makes a government Christian? What makes a nation Christian? Maybe its popular vote? Maybe if the majority of the congress is Christian.

England was a Christian nation because of the beliefs and principles of its people.

So, Christianity is a majority rules? What about the USA today. We are still governed by the Constitution. Are its citizens Christian? How many have to be Christians to be a Christian nation. 50%? 51%? 99%? Please do tell.

I've repeatedly praised the tolerance of a Christian nation like America when welcoming other faiths and creeds.

Where do our founding documents establish that the USA is a Christian nation that tolerates other religions??????????????
It doesn't. It doesn't establish the USA as any religion or faith. It does the opposite.

This is in the very opening of the DOI. I've put to bed the silly idea that this is not fundamentally a Christian principle. The very opening statement in the very document that declares independence tells you of a very fundamental Christian principle at its foundation.

That DOES NOT establish the USA as a Christian nation. It's a wonderful statement. But it DOES NOT enforce or establish any doctrines of faith. None. It simply, in very broad language, acknowledges that men have a creator, and that men have rights. If we really want to get picky, i could challenge you as to where the bible promises the pursuit of happiness. However, it never mentions Christ, or any specific faith, nor excludes any faith. Even people who don't believe in a creator are still afforded these rights, in the constition.

Done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present, the seventeenth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven, and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth. In witness whereof we have hereunto subscribed our Names."

You are impossible. It establishes the date, which I already acknowledged. It says, how long the US has been established, since the signing of the DOI. You are inferring that there is something else. That somehow the framers back doored god into the constitution. Really?? I might as well be talking with a fence post. So, no, it doesn't recognize it as the "foundation" of the constitution. Yes, It is a founding document. But no where does the constitution make any such claims. The Articles of Confederation would be a much better argument for a foundational document to the constitution. Are you aware of all the influences the framers resourced when shaping the constitution? John Locke for example?

You say "millions"- how many millions?

You really want to argue that there aren't millions of people in this country who are not Christian? How many native Americans were in the colonies? How many black slaves? You really want to go there?

The DOI and Constitution are man made documents. They are not God breathed. They are not scripture. They do not establish a Christian nation. Period, end of story.

If you then jump to the argument that the USA is Christian because the majority of its citizens are Christian, then we are really arguing semmantics. Because the majority religious affiliation of the population does NOT establish the law of the land, or usurp the power of the Constitution. Our senators and congressman do not collectively answer to a religious leader, or follow the bible as a guide to setting policy.

Since the overwhelming religion back then was Christian why don't you just call it a Christian nation, if you're prepared to call it a religious one?

I think you know why? Because you are not using "America is a Christian nation," in the same context that I am saying, "England was a religious nation."

What you're effectively saying is that, because of an imposed theocracy, the citizens must have been non-Christian in the first place

Absolutely not. I'm not making ANY judgments as to the indivdual citizens faith position.

[DannyM]

What makes a nation Christian? Let me ask it by asking this. What made Israel a Hebrew nation? Was it a man made government? Nope. It was the founding documents, a covenant, which were forged in the tenets of their religious faith, by the breathe of God himself..

If you want to talk of "God-breathed" then we are all in God's kingdom. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Jesus was VERY specific about his Kingdom. "My Kingdom is NOT of this world." And,"the gates of Hell will NOT prevail against it." Does that sound like America? As genius as many of those men were, this so called Christian nation, did not consider woman to be citizens, approved of slavery, and funded atrocities against its native inhabitants..

The very opening statements in the foundational document establishes a very Christian principle. Think of the foundation being layed when building a new house. Without the solid foundation the house is simply going to fall to pieces.

The government of 17th century England was corrupt. It was founded by the corrupt hands of man. And thus it perverted the church. The church was little more than a pawn used to gain and or maintain authority. If the majority of the population was genuinely Christian, which we have no way of knowing, then it was a nation composed of mainly Christians. Why don't you ask Charles Spurgeon, or John Wesley if it was a Christian nation.
4th century Rome was a nominally Christian naiton. Unless you think Christians can be made by an Emperor waving his scepter and declaring it as such..

This is all correct. You're almost parroting what I have already said. Again, this doesn't even touch my point.

You are right, but that is not my point, nor do I think it is Ricks. The point is that the GOVERNMENT was nominally Christian. It called itself Christian. But what makes a government Christian? What makes a nation Christian? Maybe its popular vote? Maybe if the majority of the congress is Christian..

Oh, Lord have mercy! We agree. I agree with government being Christian in name only and very unchristian with its corruptness. Again, this doesn't address my point.

So, Christianity is a majority rules? What about the USA today. We are still governed by the Constitution. Are its citizens Christian? How many have to be Christians to be a Christian nation. 50%? 51%? 99%? Please do tell..

If America dropped to, say, 40% Christian, I'd still say it was a Christian country by the very association of the opening statements in the Declaration with Christianity. It's a country whose foundational document rests on a very Christian principle. Lest we forget ...

Where do our founding documents establish that the USA is a Christian nation that tolerates other religions??????????????
It doesn't. It doesn't establish the USA as any religion or faith. It does the opposite..

Jlay, there's no need to machine-gun question marks out at me; it's very off-putting. The American people themselves have been a tolerant people since its birth. The proof is in the pudding, my friend.

That DOES NOT establish the USA as a Christian nation. It's a wonderful statement. But it DOES NOT enforce or establish any doctrines of faith. None. It simply, in very broad language, acknowledges that men have a creator, and that men have rights. If we really want to get picky, i could challenge you as to where the bible promises the pursuit of happiness. However, it never mentions Christ, or any specific faith, nor excludes any faith. Even people who don't believe in a creator are still afforded these rights, in the constition..

Again, your criteria seems include government establishing doctrines of faith, etc for America to be a Christian nation. But this was the case in 17th century England, and you still called it "nominally" Christian. Which is it? This isn't even my argument, but you've blatantly contradicted yourself. And I never said that non-Christians *shouldn't* be afforded rights. I've actually said the complete opposite. Another moot point ...

You are impossible. It establishes the date, which I already acknowledged. It says, how long the US has been established, since the signing of the DOI. You are inferring that there is something else. That somehow the framers back doored god into the constitution. Really?? I might as well be talking with a fence post. So, no, it doesn't recognize it as the "foundation" of the constitution. Yes, It is a founding document. But no where does the constitution make any such claims. The Articles of Confederation would be a much better argument for a foundational document to the constitution. Are you aware of all the influences the framers resourced when shaping the constitution? John Locke for example?.

No I'm not inferring any such thing; I'm merely pointing to the fact that the Constitution recognises the DOI as the foundational document in the birth of American democracy.

You really want to argue that there aren't millions of people in this country who are not Christian? How many native Americans were in the colonies? How many black slaves? You really want to go there?.

No. My mistake, as I thought you were saying that there are millions of non-Christian Christians in America. A bit like Rick keeps saying, without any data to support it. My apologies.

The DOI and Constitution are man made documents. They are not God breathed. They are not scripture. They do not establish a Christian nation. Period, end of story..

Again, you're putting your own terms into the equation and then shooting down the opposition with ease, as if you've "proved" your point. That is all the above does.

If you then jump to the argument that the USA is Christian because the majority of its citizens are Christian, then we are really arguing semmantics. Because the majority religious affiliation of the population does NOT establish the law of the land, or usurp the power of the Constitution. Our senators and congressman do not collectively answer to a religious leader, or follow the bible as a guide to setting policy..

If I'd ever argued for any of the above, Jlay, then I'm sure that this salvo would have put me in my place.

I think you know why? Because you are not using "America is a Christian nation," in the same context that I am saying, "England was a religious nation. Absolutely not. I'm not making ANY judgments as to the indivdual citizens faith position.

I don't think I do? You seem to have no idea about what my ctiteria are for a Christian nation. I'm noticing I'm alone on what defines a Christian nation. This doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong, but it means that the chances are that I'm wrong. But, by my criteria, I'm absolutely right. My criteria appears to be in a minority, though to say the least.

[RickD]

What makes a nation Christian? Let me ask it by asking this. What made Israel a Hebrew nation? Was it a man made government? Nope. It was the founding documents, a covenant, which were forged in the tenets of their religious faith, by the breathe of God himself..

If you want to talk of "God-breathed" then we are all in God's kingdom. This has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Jesus was VERY specific about his Kingdom. "My Kingdom is NOT of this world." And,"the gates of Hell will NOT prevail against it." Does that sound like America? As genius as many of those men were, this so called Christian nation, did not consider woman to be citizens, approved of slavery, and funded atrocities against its native inhabitants..

The very opening statements in the foundational document establishes a very Christian principle. Think of the foundation being layed when building a new house. Without the solid foundation the house is simply going to fall to pieces.

The government of 17th century England was corrupt. It was founded by the corrupt hands of man. And thus it perverted the church. The church was little more than a pawn used to gain and or maintain authority. If the majority of the population was genuinely Christian, which we have no way of knowing, then it was a nation composed of mainly Christians. Why don't you ask Charles Spurgeon, or John Wesley if it was a Christian nation.
4th century Rome was a nominally Christian naiton. Unless you think Christians can be made by an Emperor waving his scepter and declaring it as such..

This is all correct. You're almost parroting what I have already said. Again, this doesn't even touch my point.

You are right, but that is not my point, nor do I think it is Ricks. The point is that the GOVERNMENT was nominally Christian. It called itself Christian. But what makes a government Christian? What makes a nation Christian? Maybe its popular vote? Maybe if the majority of the congress is Christian..

Oh, Lord have mercy! We agree. I agree with government being Christian in name only and very unchristian with its corruptness. Again, this doesn't address my point.

So, Christianity is a majority rules? What about the USA today. We are still governed by the Constitution. Are its citizens Christian? How many have to be Christians to be a Christian nation. 50%? 51%? 99%? Please do tell..

If America dropped to, say, 40% Christian, I'd still say it was a Christian country by the very association of the opening statements in the Declaration with Christianity. It's a country whose foundational document rests on a very Christian principle. Lest we forget ...

Where do our founding documents establish that the USA is a Christian nation that tolerates other religions??????????????
It doesn't. It doesn't establish the USA as any religion or faith. It does the opposite..

Jlay, there's no need to machine-gun question marks out at me; it's very off-putting. The American people themselves have been a tolerant people since its birth. The proof is in the pudding, my friend.

That DOES NOT establish the USA as a Christian nation. It's a wonderful statement. But it DOES NOT enforce or establish any doctrines of faith. None. It simply, in very broad language, acknowledges that men have a creator, and that men have rights. If we really want to get picky, i could challenge you as to where the bible promises the pursuit of happiness. However, it never mentions Christ, or any specific faith, nor excludes any faith. Even people who don't believe in a creator are still afforded these rights, in the constition..

Again, your criteria seems include government establishing doctrines of faith, etc for America to be a Christian nation. But this was the case in 17th century England, and you still called it "nominally" Christian. Which is it? This isn't even my argument, but you've blatantly contradicted yourself. And I never said that non-Christians *shouldn't* be afforded rights. I've actually said the complete opposite. Another moot point ...

You are impossible. It establishes the date, which I already acknowledged. It says, how long the US has been established, since the signing of the DOI. You are inferring that there is something else. That somehow the framers back doored god into the constitution. Really?? I might as well be talking with a fence post. So, no, it doesn't recognize it as the "foundation" of the constitution. Yes, It is a founding document. But no where does the constitution make any such claims. The Articles of Confederation would be a much better argument for a foundational document to the constitution. Are you aware of all the influences the framers resourced when shaping the constitution? John Locke for example?.

No I'm not inferring any such thing; I'm merely pointing to the fact that the Constitution recognises the DOI as the foundational document in the birth of American democracy.

You really want to argue that there aren't millions of people in this country who are not Christian? How many native Americans were in the colonies? How many black slaves? You really want to go there?.

No. My mistake, as I thought you were saying that there are millions of non-Christian Christians in America. A bit like Rick keeps saying, without any data to support it. My apologies.

The DOI and Constitution are man made documents. They are not God breathed. They are not scripture. They do not establish a Christian nation. Period, end of story..

Again, you're putting your own terms into the equation and then shooting down the opposition with ease, as if you've "proved" your point. That is all the above does.

If you then jump to the argument that the USA is Christian because the majority of its citizens are Christian, then we are really arguing semmantics. Because the majority religious affiliation of the population does NOT establish the law of the land, or usurp the power of the Constitution. Our senators and congressman do not collectively answer to a religious leader, or follow the bible as a guide to setting policy..

If I'd ever argued for any of the above, Jlay, then I'm sure that this salvo would have put me in my place.

I think you know why? Because you are not using "America is a Christian nation," in the same context that I am saying, "England was a religious nation. Absolutely not. I'm not making ANY judgments as to the indivdual citizens faith position.

I don't think I do? You seem to have no idea about what my ctiteria are for a Christian nation. I'm noticing I'm alone on what defines a Christian nation. This doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong, but it means that the chances are that I'm wrong. But, by my criteria, I'm absolutely right. My criteria appears to be in a minority, though to say the least.

Danny, we finally agree on something in this thread. Chances are you are probably wrong.

[DannyM]

Danny, we finally agree on something in this thread. Chances are you are probably wrong.

Rick, it is certainly very possible ...

[RickD]

Danny, we finally agree on something in this thread. Chances are you are probably wrong.

Rick, it is certainly very possible ...

Danny, I read a poll that says 90% of Americans think you are wrong.

[DannyM]

Danny, we finally agree on something in this thread. Chances are you are probably wrong.

Rick, it is certainly very possible ...

Danny, I read a poll that says 90% of Americans think you are wrong.

Rick, but not all of them will be 'real' believers in what it means to be "wrong"...

[RickD]

Danny, we finally agree on something in this thread. Chances are you are probably wrong.

Rick, it is certainly very possible ...

Danny, I read a poll that says 90% of Americans think you are wrong.

Rick, but not all of them will be 'real' believers in what it means to be "wrong"...

Touche