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

originally posted by: randyvs
a reply to: artistpoet
The point of my post was.that it doesn't matter if I concur

thats the beautiful thing about science!

So I wrote this for the post written as the apparent antithesis of this post but can no longer post it there, hence that this is a reply here to that post that would have been a reply to this post were it done according to T&Cs (long sentence, I know). Anyway here goes and I have the link to the other post for reference (www.abovetopsecret.com...) :

I'm going to break this down point by point in the interest of denying ignorance.

First of all, the phrase "in the Year of our/the Lord" was not only the accepted phrasing at the time, it still is when using the Julian or Gregorian calendars, which the world over uses, and simply an English translation of Anno Domini (A.D.) which interchangeably uses "our/the". The problem with that is that other countries that are overtly not of the Christian faith use the same terminology and yet aren't Christian nations.

Second, The Declaration of Independence references Nature's God, this could go either way in that one could be referencing a whole host of Pagan gods with that statement (supported by the "sacred geometry" in D.C.) or it could be calling the Christian god as such. Too ambiguous so we will eliminate that.

Third, The National Anthem. Yes it does indeed say that in the fourth verse, but note that in the third verse it references killing slaves that offered freedom by Britain for fighting and non-patriots(hirelings). Additionally, the lyrics were taken from a poem called "Defence of Fort M'Henry" written in 1814 by Francis Scott Key a devout Christian who was also quoted as saying "Nothing but Christianity will give you the victory. Until a man believes in his heart that Jesus Christ is his Lord and Master... his course through life will be neither safe nor pleasant". Note it was written 38 years after the country was founded and written about a battle in the War of 1812. So, being that the religion of the lyricist has little to do with the nation in which he resides, that one is out too.

Fourth, the currency. Legislation passed by a government that throughout history has lied to or outright not listened to the will of its people means that while those who passed it were likely religious, the nation isn't necessarily so, thus eliminating that point.

Fifth, the Pledge of Allegiance, written by Francis Bellamy in 1892 who was himself a Baptist minister and Christian Socialist, yet the original verbage of it did not have god anywhere in it. In fact, it changed three times between then and 1954 when the phrase "under God" was finally added. It was added during the Cold War as a way to differentiate the U.S. from the communist state, Eisenhower simply framed it in this way to rally support for the US against Communism and vilify the USSR further. In fact, some of the original supporters of the phrase were under the impression they were quoting Lincolns "Gettysburg Address" as well. However, during his time, that phrase was interchangeable with "God willing" which would render the line grammatically incorrect. So that is out as well.

Sixth, the prayer of congress is again something performed by politicians who are elected based on policies, not their religious faith. Their desire to pray is not reflective of the populace either.

Seventh, the buildings. The Washington Monument has many religious phrases carved into a symbol from ancient Egyptian religious beliefs. This would be as religiously synchronized as carving "Praise to Zeus" into a Mosque were it truly meant to be a religious symbol. It is reflective of the architecture styles of the time and was designed by a known Mason Robert Mills.

The Library of Congress is a library yes and the Statue of Moses (who by the way was a Hebraic figure, not a Christian one) is there yes. This is appropriate as the Library of Congress is not just a library, it is a cultural institution and the many other statues of non religious figures reflects this so it would almost be out of place for there not to be statues of religiously historic figures. This does not however bear reference to the a national faith.

The Supreme Court building has many figures who are "influental law-givers" including Moses, Menes, Hammurabi, Solomon, Confucius, Mohammad and many others. Yes that is right, Confucius, Moses and Mohammad, three men of three separate faiths. Kind of sends a mixed religious message if it were actually meant to be one.

The Capitol Building does have "In God We Trust" carved into it, despite the heavy controversy over the subject that would not be an issue if we were a Christian nation.

The National Archives have the commandments as reference to some of our laws inspiration in much the same way that the Supreme Court has law-giving figures.

The Lincoln Memorial and its Gettysburg Address again have "under God" in them but this again meant "God willing" which is once again the view of one man and the religious way of saying "I hope so".

The Jefferson Memorial harkens to the religious freedom of the country, not a national religion as that is something he and the founding fathers were very much against.

Eighth, The quotes selected, while effective are again the opinion of individuals and not all of them insinuate a national religion, simply that religious precepts were the inspiration for some of our laws. Yes, religious men have been in Congress throughout our history and yes you can't swing a cat in Congress today without hitting people of the faith but if our representatives were truly indicative of our nation as a whole, we would also have to accept that the moniker of idiot man child that W wore can be carried by all Americans and that since we only recently had a black president, we were a white nation until then and similarly, since we have yet to have a female president, we are a nation of males. Not to mention the fact that since politicians are all elected and controlled by the upper class, we are a nation of upper class citizens.

And finally, the US Supreme Court Decision you cited was an overruling of a law placed to prevent the immigration of alien workers to the united states for the purpose of labor. This was found to not extend to ministers because they were not laborers or workers. The quotes were commentary within the official ruling yet again by a few individuals beliefs.

You've made some good points here that Christianity has played a part in the United States' formation but it is neither our national religion nor has it ever been as we do not nor have we ever had one.

I'll just leave this Immortal Technique quote here:

"This ain't a Christian nation, mother ****** please, America NEVER taught me to turn the other cheek"

Sorry this thread kind of instantly put that song in my head. The nation was founded by mason deists, based on freedom of religion, not Christianity.

originally posted by: Barcs
The nation was founded by mason deists, based on freedom of religion, not Christianity.

And Bingo was his nameo.

Glad someone else finally brings that up.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

You're not a politician.

a reply to: mOjOm

Mason deism is based on a more liberal/broad view of Christianity.

IE, the deism they professed would not be found outside Christian nations.

IE, Europe.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It does not follow that having multiple options = not a Christian nation.

That is like arguing that the Vatican is not a Christian nation because there's no laws preventing a Mosque.

a reply to: introvert

Again, not a politician.

a reply to: Gorman91

It does not follow that having multiple options = not a Christian nation.
That is like arguing that the Vatican is not a Christian nation because you can be a practicing Muslim there.

No it's not, as a matter of fact, it's nothing like that. The Vatican is a theocratic monarchy. The United States of America is a democratic republic.

How bout that Jesus guy, huh? Been like 2,000 years ago since that whole deal and people still all fired up about it. a reply to: windword

a reply to: MoreCowbell

You think it's something that Jesus guy did or said? I don't. I think Christianity is what it is today because it was forced on the world at the tip of sword, through coercion, violence, murder, hate, ignorance, fear and guilt, disguised as love wrapped in the cross and carrying the Bible.

originally posted by: Gorman91
a reply to: mOjOm

Mason deism is based on a more liberal/broad view of Christianity.

IE, the deism they professed would not be found outside Christian nations.

IE, Europe.

From the following you can see that is certainly debatable.

Freemasonry
Freemasonry has, almost from its inception, encountered considerable opposition from organized religion, especially from the Roman Catholic Church, and from various states. Though often mistaken for such, Freemasonry is not a Christian institution.
“Freemasonry” Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 22 Feb. 2008.

One of the great authorities on Masonry was Albert Pike (1809-1901), Sovereign Grand Commander of the Southern Supreme Council of Scottish Right Freemasonry in the USA and "an honorary member of almost every Supreme Council in the world" (Albert G. Mackey, 33rd degree, and Charles T. McClenachan, 33rd degree, Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, The Masonic History Company, 1921, rev. ed.; 2:564). Pike authored Morals and Dogma of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry for the Supreme Council of the 33rd Degree, which was published by its authority. This compendium of official Masonic lore clearly traces Masonry to Hinduism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and other Eastern religions. Albert G. Mackey, co-author of Encyclopedia of Freemasonry, is also one of Masonry's highest authorities. In his Manual of the Lodge, he traces Masonic teaching back to "the ancient rites and mysteries practiced in the very bosom of pagan darkness. ..." (Albert G. Mackey, Manual of the Lodge, Macoy and Sickles, 1802, p. 96).

Masons refer to the Bible as the "Volume of the Sacred Law" (V.S.L.), and it is considered an indispensable part of what is called "the furniture" in a Masonic Lodge. But the Bible is used only in a so-called "Christian" lodge -- the Hebrew Pentateuch is used in a Hebrew lodge, the Koran in a Mohammedan lodge, the Vedas in a Brahmin lodge, etc. Jim Shaw, a former 33rd degree Mason, says that Masonry is not based on the Bible (referred to as "The Great Light"), but on the Kabala (Cabala), a medieval book of mysticism and magic. Masonic authority Henry Wilson Coil also admits that the Kabala's teachings can be seen in some of the mystical and philosophical degrees of Masonry. Albert Pike (see next), the man responsible for virtually rewriting the Scottish Rite degrees into their present form, said that the Masonic "search after light" leads directly back to the Kabala, the ultimate source of Masonic beliefs (Morals and Dogma). [HJB]

Now, all of that aside and whether or not Masonry and Christianity have the same roots once again doesn't matter in relation to what this thread is about.

As has already been clearly noted. The founders were clear about America not being established as a Christian Nation. It could not be while also being a Nation Promoting Freedom of Religion. Christianity and it's Roots and Branches are Exclusive Religions that accept the worship of only One God thereby ruling out their allowance of other Religious Worship. The Founders knew this and understood it. They also knew what happens when any Religion is in Control of a Nations Governing power and didn't want to establish that, not even if it might be their own personal choice of Religion for themselves. I don't see what is so difficult about that to understand.

In simplest terms, even if they were Christians themselves they were clear about not establishing any Religion as being the National Religion for America. If you can't see that it's because you are choosing not to see it.

originally posted by: MoreCowbell
How bout that Jesus guy, huh? Been like 2,000 years ago since that whole deal and people still all fired up about it. a reply to: windword

No. Only what "man" does with it.

Say, like --- missionaries in Hawaii.

Meh. I feel like the more important attribute of the Founding Fathers was that they all maintained civility toward one another despite their varying [religious] beliefs. Some of them were devout Christians. Some were outspoken atheists. Probably most of them were Deists, and might have considered themselves "agnostic" if they were alive in current times. Yet, they all shook hands at the end of the day and made it a point to hear each other out. Sorry for sounding corny as hell, but this is something that needs to be brought up in debates like these.

That said, there is a growing movement within our government to desecrate the democratic process and replace it with theocracy- and none of those men would have stood for it.

a reply to: mOjOm

It's also been pretty clearly noted that their definition of secular is not the same as ours today.

a reply to: windword

Plenty of democratic republics, democracies, and republics, are well within the bounds of theocracy. The UK is a great constitutional monarch with democratic state functions that shows an example of that. Their head of power is also their head of church.

Being a democratic republic in no way = no religion. It's kinda laughably ignorant to say that, what with the Commonwealth and all.

a reply to: Annee

Probably a dumb idea to judge 2000 years of missionary work based off one state-sponsored example 1800 years after the fact.

Just saying.

a reply to: Gorman91

The UK is a great constitutional monarch with democratic state functions that shows an example of that. Their head of power is also their head of church.

The United States isn't a monarchy, like the UK, and has no state religion, like the UK. The United States of America is a secular nation.

originally posted by: Gorman91
a reply to: mOjOm

It's also been pretty clearly noted that their definition of secular is not the same as ours today.

That I might agree with. Although I'm not sure anyone has explained the difference if in fact there was a difference.

I'm also not sure if everyone even thinks of the word "Secular" the same way now either, nor uses it in the same way. I think some use it to mean "Atheistic" or "Anti-Religion" while others use it in more of a "Religion-Neutral" kind of meaning. I tend to use it in the "Neutral" sense and I think that is probably closer to how the Founders might of used it. Clearly most of them were or had some form of Religion guiding their thinking and by Secular I doubt they were trying to imply a Nation void of Faith or Religion or Spiritual Guidance or whatever. Most likely it was the idea that there was no preference toward any single religion or lack there of.

originally posted by: Gorman91
a reply to: Annee

Probably a dumb idea to judge 2000 years of missionary work based off one state-sponsored example 1800 years after the fact.

Just saying.

There is no good thing that can be said about past missionary work. It led to genocide, disease, theft, dehumanization, slavery, colonization and corporate rule. If there is an Antichrist, "The Church" is it!