Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: KMurphy
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: thepd7
Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Originally posted by: Rage187
the majority of the US is Christian, WTF are you talking about?
The religious makeup of a population is irrelevent. Calling it a 'christian nation' implies correlation between the government structure itself and religion, something complete opposite to the founding of this nation. Furthermore it is a phrase of discrimination, labelling non-christians as equivalent to non-americans. It is bigoted, ignorant, and hateful.
Are you DVK's alter-ego that can actually write in english or are you his lover?
Neither. I'm a soon-to-be history teacher who is offended by the religious assault upon my nation.
This nation of yours was founded on religion. Specifically, freedom of religion. Not freedom from religion. Remember, "In God We Trust". Some history teacher you'll make :roll:
Thank you so much for demonstrating your complete ignorance. When I finish schooling you in a moment I expect you to issue a statement of apology to me as well as acknoweledgement that you were wrong, and I was right. I'm fairly sure you'll refuse, but that's what a decent person would do.
There are, of course, varying definitions of what is meant by 'nation founded on'. We'll examine the two most common meanings. First, the original colonization. The first major drive to exploration (specifically maritime) came after the Renaissance and was mostly a commercial enterprise about finding new trade routes, materials, and markets. That led to the 'discovery' of the New World. Numerous European powers immediately went about settling/dominating this new world. They did so for commercial and political gain however, not for religious purposes. Religion was so merged with society that it traveled with these people, but was not the impetus for discovery and colonization. Spain was the first big 'winner' from exploitation of this new land. King Phillip obtained obscene amounts of wealth from the new lands and used it to fuel his attempted conquests in Europe. This influx of new money into the European economy spurred massive inflation called the 'Price Revolution'. In less than two generations prices tripled. The aristocracy suffered greatly as their taxation income didn't keep pace, while the gentry prospered by greater exploitation of the masses. They used this change of balance to demand greater rights and priviledges in government. Concurrently new industries were on the rise, specifically the textile industry. These contributed to the establishment of the 'enclosure acts' which left the peasants landless and impoverished. Between 1590 and 1640 global weather change devastated crops and made life for the peasants unbearable. These people contracted as indentured servants or other positions and made the trip to the new colonies in search of a better life. Initial colonization efforts by England failed (Humphrey Gilbert, Ferdinando Gorges, Walter Raleigh, etc). Aristocratic funding for these enterprises dried up as a result and instead merchants formed joint-stock companies and made further settlement a commercial endeavor. Some obtained royal endorsements as well, though in exchange there were often requirements to prevent the spread of catholicism by spreading Christianity concurrent with their economic mission. You have to understand that this was about catholicism versus protestantism in politics however, and not truly a religious driven enterprise. The Virginia Company eventually failed and was taken over by the throne. At that time the throne was James I who was also pressing Anglicanism, and he did so in Viriginia as it was an official colony at that point. Maryland was granted to Lord Baltimore (Cecilius Calvert) by Charles I and became a haven for English Catholics because of laws established to prevent friction between different religious groups. Once again, we're talking about political maneuvers that focused on religion, not religious endeavors into the political arena. It's a subtle, but important, difference. The Carolinas were political gifts from Charles II. Prior to this they had been Spanish areas and places of refuge for those fed up with Virginia's oppressiveness. In opposition to the Fundamental Constitutions of Carolina (both religious and political) the 'Restoration colonies' grew. New France and New Netherland (in present day New England) were already established commercial enterprises long before the Puritans arrived. Even the Massachusettes Bay Colony was initially a joint-stock venture which only transferred to royal charter as a religious escape under John Winthrop after William Laud expelled the puritans from the Church of England. To show how old the idea of the seperation of church versus state is, in 1634 Roger Williams pushed for it as minister of Salem. He also opposed congregationalism. He was banished and (together with Anne Hutchinson) formed Rhode Island upon these ideals of seperation and equality. Pennsylvania was, of course, a quaker colony eventually, but before being gifted to William Penn it had existed for decades as a purely commercial enterprise. Like Rhode Island, Pennsylvania was a tolerant colony that was careful to seperate religion from politics and allowed people of all faiths. Following the 'Glorious Revolution' the puritan strangle on New England was broken and the colonies were re-chartered as non-religious enterprises careful to be open to differing religions. In other words, although many colonies were largely populated by people of various religions, it was not usually formed AS a religious colony. Furthermore there were several colonies that opposed religious intrusion into politics, and even to some small degree everyday life for the common man.
The second possible meaning for the founding of our nation is the actual split from the throne and establishing of our own country. There is simply no reason to beat this dead horse any further as pretty much everyone knows this was caused by economic and political frictions, and not as a religious exercise at all. If you read the various debates surrounding the American revolution, the Constitutional Conventions, and so on (the federalist papers, notes from the conventions, etc) there is no quesiton that while religion was important and a big part of the founders individual lives, they sought to almost totally seperate religion from politics, and from the national identity. This is largely irrefutable.
As for your 'In God We Trust' lunacy: There is no mention of God in the Constitution or original mottos or money of America. All of these things came later as a result of war and paranoia. It first appeared on coins in 1866, but was stopped in 1907. The stop was shortlived as a coalition of religious groups lobbied successfully to have it officially changed on coins in 1909. It was only under the McCarthyism hysteria that the pledge of allegiance, paper money, and the official motto was to be 'In God We Trust', almost entirely as a way to distance America from 'the red menace'. In other words, none of the foundations of America were truly religious. Our laws came from English laws which came from Roman laws which came from the Code of Hammurabi. Our states were political and commercial enterprises, and often opposed religious incursions into politics and national identity. Our money and mottos and pledges never dealt with God until much much later. Even general religious observance is a swinging pendulum - with periods of devout fervor (usually referred to as 'great awakenings') and periods of secular pursuit (call 'enlightenments').
In short, this has never been, is not now, and will never be 'a christian nation'.
Facebook
Twitter