NLBS #48: The United States Is Not, And Never Was, A Christian Nation

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

This is getting increasingly irritating, not just with the NLBS videos, but with just about any thread on ATS that is either about a video, or dedicated to a video (like this one), where people inject commentary without the proper context of having watched the video.

But...but...Skeptic. If I watch the video, any comments I make after, that confirm my bias will be disingenuous. If I forego the video, I don't have that issue.

originally posted by: SkepticOverlord

originally posted by: TzarChasm
perhaps they felt it was safer to simply let the populace believe they were christians. if they had been anything else, the chances of them putting into effect their collective ideology would have been that much more difficult.

No, there's significant historical record to indicate the majority of the founding fathers were devout Christians.

Thomas Jefferson is clearly not a Christian. John Adams regularly questioned the validity of the Christian religion. And Franklin was clearly on the fence.

seems curious that a handful of deists could convince...what, 50 christians? that their spirituality had no place in the constitution. seems like it would have gone the other way around.

a reply to: LiberLegit

Nobody denies Christianity was around from the beginning. Nobody denies our Founders were Religious Men of one type or another including Christian. But that doesn't mean they wanted to Mandate Christianity or Christian Theocracy or The Ten Commandments as the Law of the Land for the United States.

Unlike many Religious Christians today they obviously understood how to separate their own personal faith and religious choices from that of a Government that would Govern over a nation of many people. Perhaps they understood the difference between Keeping their Faith and Demanding Everyone Keeping their Faith.

Perhaps they also understood and respected each other enough to realize that even amongst themselves they held different faiths and to institute one form over another would divide even themselves.

a reply to: artistpoet

The pilgrims don't make up the nation, even back in the late 1700's and early 1800's. They make up one small section of the nation. That is like saying that just because the Amish exist in small parts of the country, that the country is an Amish country.

originally posted by: artistpoet
Where do the Pilgrim Fathers fit into all this in the founding of a nation. Who are the other players/migrants who were the forefathers ...

The 1620 Mayflower Compact swore fealty and obedience to King James. Historical scholars recognize that the Declaration of Independence supplanted that and all other early colonial government acts.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yes, it is irritating. It's like a book discussion with people who either haven't read the book in question, or read the wrong book.

Why is it so hard for people to come around to the realization that maybe they've been told the wrong thing, or have believed the wrong thing? Shouldn't people be GLAD to have more factual information under their belt and understand our nation's history a little better?

How does not having Christianity as a founding tenant of our country change anything? How does it change a Christian's very personal relationship with their God?

I submit to you that it doesn't.

Besides, does any Christian here think Jesus would care about this? Jesus would probably tell Christians today to just do their best and follow the teachings to the best of their abilities. It's not for them to judge others.

a reply to: windword

No... I think you're pretty much on the money. It wasn't only the Jews, though. The first century AD wasn't much of a happy time. It was the beginnings of a war between the monotheists and the polytheists. Monotheism won and that's the world we know today.

Jonathon KIrsch, in his book, God against the Gods, laid out how the schism that Judaism created in Rome began. At that time (1st century AD), it is estimated that 10% of its population was Jewish and Early Christians, but the rest was 'pagan'.

About the 'Early Christians:

From pg. 96/97, Viking Press, ISBN0-670-03286-7

Paganism can be likened to a noisy and colourful bazaar where merchants hawk their wares, each one declaring the superiority of the god or goddess whom he or she s offering to the crowd- Appollo or Aphrodite, Mithra or Isis, and countless others too. They might try to outshout one another, but they do not engage in brawls. The earnest advocates of the Only True God, however, enter the bazaar with the sure conviction that all other gods and goddesses are not merely inferior but counterfeit. Significantly, they call themselves Soldiers of Christ, and they see the encounter between monotheism and polytheism not as a competition of ideas and values in the marketplace of religion but as nothing less than a holy war.

That kind of thinking, more than any other, is what caused the eventual decline of the Roman Empire. During the days of its expansion, conquered peoples from every corner were allowed to practice their religion openly, even in Rome itself, but the monotheistic religions, such as Judaism and Christianity, would not stand for it. Instead, the friction got to the point of rioting, causing the emperors no end of trouble. Even Jews and Christians fought each other at that time. Only Constantine's acceptance of Christianity as the state religion finally put an end to the troubles (Irish pun intended), but it also had the effect of alienating much of the citizenry, in particular within the Roman Legions as they had a great many Germanic soldiers as centurions (they were the best fighters, but pagans).

In 64 AD, Rome burned and Nero blamed the Christians for the act and that, in my humble opinion, is what made Christianity into what it is today. There is nothing so strong ideologically, as a religion born out of martyrdom.

God, these NLBS post topics are farther left than MSNBC. I'm glad all the lefties have a post to come hang out in - maybe they'll leave all the middle ground posts alone for a change.

a reply to: Skid Mark

Probably has something to do with the fact that they only read one book and most of them don't understand that one either.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Yes, of course... but do you have an opinion to share?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The pilgrims don't make up the nation, even back in the late 1700's and early 1800's. They make up one small section of the nation. That is like saying that just because the Amish exist in small parts of the country, that the country is an Amish country.

Yes I was aware the Pilgrim Fathers represented only a small part of North America
I am aware of other settlers too
How exactly did I say they represent the whole of North America ... as you implied

Where do the Pilgrim Fathers fit into all this in the founding of a nation. "Who are the other players/migrants who were the forefathers ..."
We/most are only taught only a little of US history in the UK

A further question without bias is
Were the Native American peoples represented

Genuine questions to my USA friends ... Us history is not strong point for myself and many others in the UK unless one can afford higher education ...

a reply to: theNLBS

Great video, and it makes an excellent point.

Under God... doesn't specify which flavour, does it?

Neither does "the almighty"

People simply inject their own personal interpretation of what those things mean.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

The 1620 Mayflower Compact swore fealty and obedience to King James. Historical scholars recognize that the Declaration of Independence supplanted that and all other early colonial government acts.

Thank you for explaining that ... does that mean that some resident in North America fought on the side of the red coats

originally posted by: jjkenobi
God, these NLBS post topics are farther left than MSNBC.

Since when is accurately representing the founding of the nation a left-sided opinion?

Perhaps you missed the end of the video (or the entire video) where we took a strong stab and left-sided policies.

originally posted by: artistpoet
does that mean that some resident in North America fought on the side of the red coats

Well, there's 153 years between the Mayflower Compact and the Boston Tea Party. So a lot would have changed. But yes, there were several land owners throughout the colonies who remained loyal to the crown.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

And some who remained loyal to the French too. Both Britain and France gained much profit from the sale and labour of slavery.

Not a very Christian way to profit, but, there it is.

originally posted by: artistpoet
Where do the Pilgrim Fathers fit into all this in the founding of a nation. "Who are the other players/migrants who were the forefathers ..."

As SO said the Mayflower Compact was overturned with the newer legal documents that made up our country. So they only fit into the founding of our nation in that they are just one of the pieces.

We/most are only taught only a little of US history in the UK

A further question without bias is
Were the Native American peoples represented

There is actually some debate that the Articles of the Confederacy and/or the Constitution are based on the Six Nations' decentralized government.

Genuine questions to my USA friends ... Us history is not strong point for myself and many others in the UK unless one can afford higher education ...

Don't worry. US history isn't a strong point for many Americans either. Schools tend to teach a warped version of US history, so many don't know what really happened anyways.

a reply to: Aliensun

A good example, but best give it up.
There are powers at play here that dare not be mentioned as they have the control.

It was a question not an example
Not sure what you mean ... ATS allows many views but also your views may/will be challenged by other members
The rules of ATS are fair in my opinion
I am seeking information only not trying to prove any point

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thank you for your reply ... it is appreciated