"But keep it OUT of politics and the public sphere."

I'd soften this to "Do not codify religious doctrine in law." There is no Platonic politician, free from external values, beliefs, and judgments. Nor would I advocate voting for such a person were he or she to run. Would you expect an objectivist to put objectivism aside upon entering office? Or say, "That's something you can believe in private, but it has no place in the public sphere?"

The reality is that we all have beliefs (or even lack thereof) that shape our perceptions of the world. And when politicians enter office, they don't leave those behind (actually, they do, but it's mostly because they're corrupt). A proper objection to the treatment of religion in politics is in leveraging the office to promote one religion or marginalize another.

America is not a christian nation and America as a christian nation is something that goes against the founders and the essence of the country. America can have christian politicians, christian people, but in the end of the day it is supposed to be a secular society and a secular nation, people that want to bring christianity (or any other religion) into politics do wrong. This isn't to say that I can't be president and be guided by values that I may have reached as a christian, it is just to say that america is not based on christian values and as a nation should not be shaped by christian values.

it isn't supposed to be a secular society. It is supposed to be a secular Government. And despite whatever the political climate is in the nation as a whole, people are to be able to worship freely and the establishment of any religion over others is prohibited. It isn't that the founders didn't see the US as a "Christian Nation" which they might have in their own way. But it was crystal clear that the founders that mattered wanted to limit religion's influence on the Federal government.

*religious climate

@Socrates Dissatisfied:

Two things you said (correct me if I have misunderstood):

1. The President (and politicians, generally) are guided by particular values.
2. The nation should not be shaped by those values.

Is it proper, then, to conclude the following?

3. The President (and politicians, generally) should not have input in shaping the nation.

No, politicians have values that come for different reasons, it is natural and proper that they act on those values, however it is one thing to be a christian and to thus be opposed to abortion, it is a completely different thing to be a christian, thus be opposed to abortion, and to then try and get the nation to become a chrisitan nation that opposes abortion on the specific ground it goes against christian teaching. And @santa, it is, you can have religion privately but society and the runnings of it are meant to be secular! And the founders didn't see the US as a christian nation, they were largely deists!

that is wrong socrates. There isn't anything that prohibits or discourages a politician from politicizing his faith. If there was we'd probably still have slaves. And yes, several did see the U.S. as the perfect Christian nation that was carrying out Gods will.

by parroting information you have heard without any understanding you just hurt the cause you support.

so it is ok for a politician to try and make the nation a christian nation? surely not? you can oppose slavery as a christian, but to say that this nation is a christian nation, we should follow christian ideas, btw that means no slavery is wrong. And we wouldn't still have slaves, christianity had little to do with the abolishment of slavery in my mind (and the confedaracy was christian). Do I need to restate obi's list of founding fathers that didn't see things that way? A nation built upon a religion is a disgusting thing.

i do understand, and am not a parrot, obi and i disagree on many things, i just know enough about the fathers to know they weren't tryingto create a chrisitian state

@Socrates Dissatisfied:

And what about the tax code? What about social programs?

Should a politician who is personally for social security vote against it because (s)he is only for it for religious reasons?

I said a politician who is anti abortion can go against it even if they are against it because of their faith, i said though that it is wrong to then try and make the country be based on that faith and then from that faith oppose abortion, so i don't see your point...

The abolition movement was spearheaded by clergy in New England and elsewhere and the debates on the issue were consistently framed in religious terms. Political struggle against slavery was largely religious in nature for the majority of its existence in the United States. Suggesting otherwise is ignorant.

People can say we should follow satanic ideals if they like. As long as they don't violate the constitution implementing their plan and they pass the legislative process how the hell are you going to stop it? How do you tell people what ideals to follow/vote for? The framers resisted an establishment of religion, they didn't resist people using their ideals, whatever they may be to decide their political goals and affiliations. To suggest so, again, is ignorant.

I see. I'm sorry, I misunderstood. So, it is okay for politicians to vote for or against an issue (social security, abortion, whatever) if it stems from faith -- only, they ought not to first vote that the country should be based on their faith(s). Is that correct?

I probably wont be able to post on here for a while now, suffice it to say that Jefferson rejected christianity, Paine rejected christianity, Hamilton, Madison, Voltaire agreat influence of the fathers did etc. The fathers often campaigned for the secular nation we have today, and there are many instances of it. Even if they had personal faith (not the christianity of our politicians today incidentaly) they realised thatthe state should be secular, seperated from religion...

I didn't say that santa, im saying the real reason for the abolishment wasn't religion though. even if that was what was said. it's no coincidence the north who had factories were against slaves more than the south whose economy relied on slaves much more... And yes Willtor, that is precisely my position

And I certainly agree with that sentiment. But I'm trying to understand if you think it means something different from what I think it means.

Okay, I understand. Yes, I agree.

Jefferson did NOT reject Christianity. Paine did and was branded a radical by Americans for it.

Heres the underlying problem here.

You have idiots like Bachman and santorum who come out and say "Durrrrr the founders were Christian therefore our country should be christian durr"

And then you have idiots like Socrates and Obi who oblige them and say "Durrrrr the founders weren't Christian and therefore our country shouldn't be Christian Durrrr"

The response to Bachman an Santorum shouldn't be making false historical arguments about the Society of the Early Republic, which WAS religious and largely CHRISTIAN (although they wouldn't have seen it that way due to the different views of Christianity that saw seperate sects as we would see different religions today).

The correct response, which is historically accurate, is that the founders, despite their religion, selflessly attempted to create a Federal Government that, despite their individual faiths, would not establish one, or any number of official religions. They, in theory at least, sought a government ruled by civic virtue and the commonwealth rather than Religious teaching despite, and perhaps in spite of their own very real religious faith.

So responding to the religious right's abject stupidity with abject stupidity of your own does no good, especially when the traditional educated explanation does just fine in addressing their ignorance.

Obi - you are correct there are 26 clergy in the UK House of lords - out of 765. The house of Lords is the UK's second chamber and does not make any laws, they are considered a revising chamber. The House of Commons rules supreme and there are no religious appointments there.

Many people wish to see the House of Lords reformed, unfortunately (a) it is never a priority and (b) no-one agrees what should replace it so it just bumps along.

On the subject of people who say 'America/England is a Christian country' what they are really saying is 'I'm Christian, my church believes 'x', therefore we shouldn't bother debating the matter'. I see this attitude a lot. Americans also tend to use this logic in other ways. 'The fathers decided 'x' therefore the subject is not open for debate'.

People should make laws for themselves, for their time.

For anyone who wants to get past the cliches of this argument I'd suggest Steven Keillor's book "This Rebellious House". Keillor is an evangelical Christian who argues vigorously that the USA is not a Christian nation, and that secularist capitalism is/was responsible for slavery, oppression of women, the injustices of our economic system, and other social ills. Interesting stuff.

"Jefferson did NOT reject Christianity"

Correct me if I'm wrong--perhaps I am--but wasn't Jefferson a deist?

Not an out-and-out atheistic rejection of Christianity, but it doesn't sound like he particularly embraced it, either, more like he just took a rationalist, deist, not-at-all-radicalized approach to religion and the metaphysical altogether.


"And then you have idiots like Socrates and Obi who oblige them and say "Durrrrr the founders weren't Christian and therefore our country shouldn't be Christian Durrrr""

And then you have idiots like SantaClausowitz who stoops to cheap insults and say "Durrrrr who cares what the intention of the Founders and what our Constitutional and legal history is, the correct response isn't that our government should be secular as spoken by atheist Obi, but that it should be secular by *my* definition cuz it's mine and I's smarts Durrrr"

Really, SC?

You take issue with my statement that the country as a legal entity shouldn't be Christian, was not Christian, and that as a result Christianity--or any other religion--should be kept out of the public sphere of political policy...or do you...?

Did I EVER question whether America wasn't mostly Christian by way of demographics?

No.

I said it was not and should not be a Christian nation in the the legal, policy-driven sense of the term, again, stressing the point I made:

"You're free to worship Christianity in your own place of worship.
You're free to do so in your home.
But keep it OUT of politics and the public sphere."

Your stance, for all your bluster, seems far less removed from mine than you would like to pretend.

The framework and policies of the US Government and, thus, America as a nation in the legal sense of the term, should be secular and NOT Christian; demographically, yes, throughout our history, and even still today (albeit by a shrinking margin) we are made up of mainly Christian people, though as you point out, until recently they'd likely have identified by their sect--Catholic, Protestant, Methodist, etc.--rather than under the umbrella, catch-all term "Christian."

So, really...

Did you just feel like calling me out for nothing to call me out for nothing, or are you just as thick-headed and ill of thought as your lame caricatures of Socrates and myself?

Rather unworthy of yourself, SC, quibble over what amounts to nothing at all, unless you DO argue that the US should be a Christian nation in the legal and Constitutional sense, which is not at all what you seem to be saying, so, in the words of my generation:

WTF, bro?

@SantaClausowitz:

There was a lot of Deism dressed in Christian traditions among the elites of the day. That is, many people thought that Jesus was a great teacher of morality and they attended church on a weekly basis, but they didn't necessarily believe that Jesus was the Son of God. The Founding Fathers, mostly, fit this mold. They were largely unitarian in their theology, even if they didn't join the Unitarian Church. John Adams left the Congregational Church and joined the Unitarian Church, though. And Thomas Jefferson actually went so far as to produce his own redaction of the Bible that removed a lot of the supernatural elements.

Yes, as you say, they had real religious faith, but many of them didn't have what you or I might consider orthodox Christian faith, even within a couple of standard deviations.

My take on it is that generally, they didn't want any particular denomination to gain precedence over another, and that the establishment of a federal denomination (as opposed to a religion-as-we-use-the-word) would be contrary to the public good. As an extension, I think most (especially the aforementioned fairly heterodox) probably believed that it would be damaging to personal integrity and intellectual honesty for there to be any kind of a binding creed.

Today, the religious and philosophical diversity in America is much greater, so the constitutional value is stretched much further. But given the personal heterodoxy of most of the Founding Fathers, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that Christianity, even generally, was ever intended to be held higher than alternatives, insofar as law was concerned.

"Correct me if I'm wrong--perhaps I am--but wasn't Jefferson a deist?

Not an out-and-out atheistic rejection of Christianity, but it doesn't sound like he particularly embraced it, either, more like he just took a rationalist, deist, not-at-all-radicalized approach to religion and the metaphysical altogether."

He was a Christian that sought to understand Jesus on his own terms. He in no way "rejected Christianity" and any quotes that suggest so should be taken with the understanding that he was a Slaveholder that also rejected slavery. No matter what you call it he was a Christian, who certainly saw himself as a christian. Arguing that he wasn't puts you on the losing side of the argument.

"
Rather unworthy of yourself, SC, quibble over what amounts to nothing at all, unless you DO argue that the US should be a Christian nation in the legal and Constitutional sense, which is not at all what you seem to be saying, so, in the words of my generation:"

You argued that the founders were not Christian and therefore fdid not want to found a christian nation. That is patently false. I object to this as I object to many of your simpleminded attempts to parrot liberal stances. It cheapens the argument and allows the conservative christians to frame it.

The problem Obi, is that they want to make this debate about whether the founders were christian. They want the equation "Founders Christian/ Founders used "Christian ideals"= Country Christian". The correct way to oppose this is to say that equation is bull shit which it is.

Instead we have people like you who come in, don't say anything about the horse shit equation and instead say "The Founders Weren't Christian!" This is wrong and it sets liberals up for defeat.

So like most of your attempts to take the liberal party line, I find this effort lacking an dangerous.

Plus 1 Santa and Willtor for "true history." Even Jefferson promoted Christianity and Christian teachings in many respects, and the nation was founded in the context of a Christian society. Colonies (later states) had official denominations (until they followed the federal lea and adopted similar language and policies), but the federal government was prohibited from it from the start. So yes, this was a Christian nation in terms of the society of the time, but no, there was never an official religion of the government, and there was not intended to be. That said, religion definitely had a prominent place in the public square, and freedom of religion was guaranteed. That freedom included public displays on public land, and was available to any group who wished to do so without advocating overthrow of the government or a violation of mores such as plural marriages. Today, however, there is a movement toward replacing "freedom of religion" with its public aspects with "freedom of worship" behind closed doors. Sad, really.

federal lea = federal lead

@Maniac:

Thanks for sharing and correcting about the revising chamber aspect.

Consulting all-knowing Wikipedia again, as I've only a basic (as you can tell) understanding of the UK system, it says legislation, with the exception of money bills, can be introduced by either House, and both can amend and reject bills, albeit with the HoL being severely limited in this capacity.

(Odd that the "Lords" House should seem to be weaker than the "Commons," you'd think it was the other way around if anything just by the sound of it, growing up outside of that system, or--as I guess I always just thought of it--just different in its structure and power set and makeup as is the case with the House and Senate in the US, but I did know the House is the prime mover of the two bodies, so I'll take whatever meager points there that I can.) :)

In any case, even with just the possibility allowed for amendments, bills introduced and rejected, and so on...

26 un-elected seats seems rather undemocratic (even if they are managed by a far larger democratically elected body of officials around them) and that they are allowed to sit because of their personal religious faith seems even more out of tune there.

Also--to use that Poli Sci 103 knowledge and see how badly I can bungle all of this before someone smacks me down, I suppose--the Queen's supposed to be Head of State and Governor of the Church of England as well, so that seems another fusion, declawed though the monarchy might be...

My point being that these are the sorts of things that the US Founders sought to AVOID when framing their government, as they framed it when monarchies did still exist with clout, and they saw from history (and we can continue to see today) the dangers of a fusion between Church and State or having a country be a "Christian" Country (or, perhaps more prominently today, a "Muslim" Country) by legal definition.

Regardless of demographic population, a free country CANNOT be a Christian, Muslim, Jewish, or any other sort of religious nation BY LEGAL definition and by working policy and rule of law.

If krellin and those like him want to call the US "the nation with the most Christians in the world," they're free to do so (supposing that they check the international stats on that, though we're likely still 1st or nearly 1st in that "illustrious" category.)

But to say we are a "Christian nation" implies something completely different in a legal and policy-relevant sense, and THAT is where the problem comes in.

People try and justify School Prayer, for instance, by claiming we are a "Christian nation."
And they do the same thing when trying to deny gays the right to marry.
And by denying abortion rights.
And so on.

When it affects public policy, when it affects women denied control over their bodies and gays wishing to marry and those who, like me, attended public school and are NOT Christian and would NOT want public school prayer endorsed in schools...

In short, when those people, who PAY TAXES the same as everyone else, are denied their legal rights on the basis of this allegedly being a "Christian nation" by way of LEGALITY rather than merely based on population, THEN we have an issue.

@Mujus:

I tend to speak quite reservedly when it comes to Jefferson (and, frankly, many of the other Founding Fathers) and associations with Christianity. I'd be willing to bet that he would have been more comfortable in a UU church, today, than in the Episcopal Church of his day (of which he was a member).

@SC:

"[Jefferson] was a Christian that sought to understand Jesus on his own terms."

I'll again cite Wikipedia, but as this is a sourced quote, I feel OK doing so:

"Jefferson considered much of the New Testament of the Bible to be false. He described the stories as "so much untruth, charlatanism and imposture."[36] He described the "roguery of others of His disciples," [37] and called them a "band of dupes and impostors," describing Paul as the "first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus", and wrote of "palpable interpolations and falsifications."

Doesn't sound like he was too keen on the New Testament...is that not a rather key tenant of the Christian faith?

And the disciples...doesn't seem to like THEM...

*AND* he calls the stories untrue. Hm. I can certainly see how you might interpret that as his being a closet Christian.

He "sought to understand Jesus on his own terms?"

That's nice and vague...as opposed to the actual quotes and particular evidence *I* have given for *my* account of the deist Jefferson...