Is the USA a Christian nation? - George Washington

Washington was a great man in every way. A man of deep conviction and modesty, nothing I have read has led me to believe he was anything other than the personification of what American "values" should be. He was not the ‘Father of the Declaration of Independence’, he was not the ‘Father of the Bill of Rights’, and he was not the ‘Father of the Constitution’. He was however the 'Father of our Country'. What a title to be given to any man about a nation that would grow to become arguably the greatest nation the world has ever seen. What an honor. One could literally go on for hours on this man’s deeds; examples of his self sacrifice, martial skill, personal integrity, wisdom, intelligence, and benevolence.

Though not instrumental in the framing of our government or its intrinsic tenets, Washington never the less gave this nation its character and therefore his views should carry at least as much and perhaps even more weight than the other founding fathers. This makes it all the more disconcerting that historians can’t really decide on some of his most basic convictions.

There is evidence that he was a strong proponent of religious tolerance/liberty. One of the better quotes demonstrating this was in regards to fears from the Jewish community which of course had faced persecution almost everywhere else. “...the Government of the United States ... gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. ... May the children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and figtree, and there shall be none to make him afraid. May the father of all mercies scatter light and not darkness in our paths, and make us all in our several vocations useful here, and in his own due time and way everlastingly happy.” In addition he is quoted as having said "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans, Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."[1]

At times he went to church fairly regularly. At other times he would go years without attending. When he did go he often visited many different denominations both catholic and protestant. Debate continues to what degree Washington was a Christian and to what degree he was something else. In fact debate even rages on whether or not he took communion when he did attend. So the long and the short of it is, no one is really sure what Washington’s views were on Christ. The only thing historians can seem to agree on concerning this is that they can’t agree.[2][3][4] In fact the debate is so ingrained in our study of this great man that Wikipedia actually has a page on the debate, independent of the page on him.[5]

James Madison's vote was, ‘abstain’ because of a lack of information. George Washington’s vote is, ‘abstain’ because of conflicting information. What will Hamilton's be?

Score:1-1-2

Citations:
[1] wikipedia.org , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington#Religious_beliefs
[2] ushistory.org (Proof Washington was a Christian?), http://www.ushistory.org/valleyforge/youasked/060.htm
[3] earlyamericanhistory.net , http://www.earlyamericanhistory.net/founding_fathers.htm
[4] infidels.org , http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/franklin_steiner/presidents.html#1
[5] wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_and_religion

Founding Fathers - Interlude, A revelation.

I have spent the last couple of weeks studying the Founding Fathers. It has been an enlightening experience. I have settled in my own my mind at least that they believed in a secular government. Not because of a lack of belief in the divine but because they had witnessed firsthand the corrupting influence that religion and government had on one another. That neither religion nor government was pure when one was influenced by the other and that the only way to guarantee religious freedom for all was to strip the government of the power to favor or impede religious pursuit. This is the foundation and essence of the first amendment.

Having stated that; I felt compelled to write about a minor epiphany I had while researching. It occurred to me that the issue of separation of church and state was so important to Madison and his contemporaries because they had witnessed the inherent abuses of power in governments that were part theocracy. I am sure however that they could not foresee a time when private enterprise would be a danger to the public welfare. In their day business was undoubtedly viewed as an additional check on government and that business and government’s intrinsic natures (taxation, regulation, and lack thereof) would keep them at perpetual odds and thereby help prevent corruption in both.

Sadly, I do not think they recognized the possibility that someday industry would grow as influential as any religion. That a need would arise to separate business from government and for the same reasons they felt religion should be separate from government. I cannot help asking myself what would happen if our government was prohibited from interfering with, or supporting industry except to protect the rights of citizens. I personally believe that like religion we would find that both government and industry would be better off without each other. Surely government corruption would diminish without the never ceasing flow of corporate wealth, and surely the economy would be stronger were it's foundation supported by merit rather than political endorsement.

Both the politicians and companies that profit from this incestuous relationship want us to believe that America's problems are the result of entitlement programs, unjust wars, immigration law, health care reform, or any of the other talking points the politicians, pundits, and the media use to distract us. When the sad truth is; America's real problems stem from it's moral foundations crumbling under the weight of corporate wealth. That its integrity has been compromised by the cancerous growth known as big business. That protecting the rights of the people is far less important and far less profitable than protecting the concerns of business.

Is the USA a Christian nation? - James Madison

This was supposed to be cut and dry. This was supposed to be the shortest and thereby the fastest of the articles to write. By the criteria I set forth when I started this project, Madison is pretty cut and dry. Throughout his life Madison kept his personal religious beliefs ah well, personal… So as a result I have no choice but to cast his vote as an ‘abstain’.

Still, that is just not fair. By that, I don’t mean fair to me, this article, or this vote. I mean fair to Madison. Perhaps the only thing he believed in more than keeping his personal beliefs personal was the defense of both religious liberty and the separation of church and state. To write an article on Madison and not express his views on these subjects would be tantamount to denying a dying (err…dead) man his last request.

Father of the Constitution, Father of the Bill of Rights, Congressman, President of the United States of America and author of over a third of the Federalist papers. There is perhaps none more knowledgeable than Madison or more capable of giving evidence to the substance and meaning of both the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.

Direct references to separation:
•    The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).
•    Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history (Detached Memorandum, circa 1820).
•    Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
•    I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
•    To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811).

Madison's summary of the First Amendment:
Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).

Against establishment of religion
•    The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity (Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec 3, 1821).
•    Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, and the full establishment of it in some parts of our country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government and Religion neither can be duly supported. Such, indeed, is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law was right and necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was, which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects dissenting from the established sect was safe, and even useful. The example of the colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all sects might be safely and even advantageously put on a footing of equal and entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the Declaration of Independence has shown that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent country. if a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States which had abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia, where it is impossible to deny that religion prevails with more zeal and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth, that Governments do better without kings and nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson: the Religion flourishes in greater purity without, than with the aid of Government (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).
•    If the Church of England had been the established and general religion and all the northern colonies as it has been among us here and uninterrupted tranquility had prevailed throughout the continent, it is clear to me that slavery and subjection might and would have been gradually insulated among us. Union of religious sentiments begets a surprising confidence and ecclesiastical establishments tend to grate ignorance and corruption all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects (Letter to William Bradford, Jan. 24, 1774).
•    The prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that religion could not be preserved without the support of government nor government be supported without an established religion that there must be at least an alliance of some sort between them. It remained for North America to bring the great and interesting subject to a fair, and finally a decisive test.
•   It is true that the New England states have not discontinued establishments of religions formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced toward the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to religion or good government.
But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of religion was withdrawn sufficiently proved that it does not need the support of government and it will scarcely be contended that government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).
•    The settled opinion here is, that religion is essentially distinct from civil Government, and exempt from its cognizance; that a connection between them is injurious to both; that there are causes in the human breast which ensure the perpetuity of religion without the aid of the law; that rival sects, with equal rights, exercise mutual censorship in favor of good morals; that if new sects arise with absurd opinions or over-heated imaginations, the proper remedies lie in time, forbearance, and example; that a legal establishment of religion without a toleration could not be thought of, and with a toleration, is no security for and animosity; and, finally, that these opinions are supported by experience, which has shewn that every relaxation of the alliance between law and religion, from the partial example of Holland to the consummation in Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey, &c., has been found as safe in practice as it is sound in theory. Prior to the Revolution, the Episcopal Church was established by law in this State. On the Declaration of Independence it was left, with all other sects, to a self-support. And no doubt exists that there is much more of religion among us now than there ever was before the change, and particularly in the sect which enjoyed the legal patronage. This proves rather more than that the law is not necessary to the support of religion (Letter to Edward Everett, Montpellier, March 18, 1823). [1]

There can be no doubt on Madison’s views on the separation of religion from government. Still his vote remains, ‘abstain’. The score is now 1-1-1 stick around, even I don't know what will happen next.

Citations:
[1] Separation of Church and State Home Page, http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmadison.htm

Is the USA a Christian nation? - John Jay

I chose John Adams randomly. Adams turned out to lend surprising strength to the argument that the United States government was not conceived or even intended to be a Christian nation. It was for this reason I wanted the follow up article to be about John Jay. From nothing more than preliminary research it was obvious that Jay was a polar opposite.

It seems Jay is a bit of an anomaly in several ways amongst his peers; he is for instance the only one of the seven I personally had never heard of prior to writing this paper. He is also in the minority being that he never served as president. The one thing that makes him truly unique though is the fact that there is absolutely no confusion, controversy, or room for debate on his religious beliefs.

Jay was without a doubt an ardent Christian. Born, raised, and died an Anglican (renamed the Protestant Episcopal Church in America after the American Revolution). In fact he very well might have been the first person in United States history to utter the phrase “Christian nation”. In a letter addressed to Pennsylvania House of Representatives member John Murray, dated October 12, 1816, Jay wrote, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” [1][2]

If membership in his church of choice were not enough to prove he believed in the divinity of Christ he also left us this quote to shore up any remaining doubt; "Unto Him who is the author and giver of all good, I render sincere and humble thanks for His manifold and unmerited blessings, and especially for our redemption and salvation by His beloved Son. ... Blessed be His holy name."[3]

Did he believe that the US was or should be a Christian nation? That is not certain. He obviously believed that the majority of Americans were Christians, and that elected offices should be held by Christians but it’s uncertain whether he believed that the country was and/or should be founded on Christian principles or whether there were intrinsic lines between church and state. Fortunately for this article, determining that is not part of the criteria.

Jay was President of the Continental Congress, first Chief Justice of the United States, ambassador to Spain and France, and author of several of the Federalist papers. Though he resisted succession initially, once it seemed inevitable he quickly became a passionate patriot and was instrumental in leading New York in the cause of the separatists.[1] It is abundantly clear that he was both a Founding Father and a Christian. He therefore casts his vote; Christian nation.

The score now stands at 1-1. There is a good chance that after tomorrow’s article we will be at 1-1-1. Go figure…

Citations:
[1] Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Jay
[2] Jay, William (1833). The Life of John Jay: With Selections from His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers. J. & J. Harper. pp. 376. http://books.google.com/?id=V50EAAAAYAAJ. Retrieved 2008-08-22.
[3] partyof1776.net , http://www.partyof1776.net/p1776/fathers/Jay%20John/quotes/contents.html

 

Is the USA a Christian nation? - John Adams

As I sit here trying to decide which one of these seven great men I should write about first. I can only think that I do not wish to appear to favor one over the others nor do I want to pick one because of their stance on Christianity. Therefore I decided to leave the choice up to chance and let a random number generator decide for me. The result was three and that means that John Adams will be the first “Founding Father” whose religious views we will investigate.

John Adams agitated for the Continental Congress to declare independence, assisted Thomas Jefferson in drafting the Declaration of Independence, and was a key negotiator in the eventual peace talks with England. That by itself would be enough to qualify him as a great man worthy of the deepest respect, but he was also the first Vice-President and the second President of the United States. These are his credentials as a founding father. Surely no one can deny his right to claim that title.

He was raised a Protestant Congregationalist but converted to Unitarianism early in his life. John Adams was a devoutly pious man who believed that human virtues, intelligence, and accomplishments flowed from God or as he called God in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, “author of the universe”. In an 1813 letter to Jefferson, Adams said, "The human Understanding is a revelation from its Maker which can never be disputed or doubted. No Prophecies, no Miracles are necessary to prove this celestial communication. This revelation has made it certain that two and one make three, and that one is not three, nor can three be one... Had you and I been forty days with Moses on Mount Sinai... and there told that one was three and three one, we might not have had courage to deny it, but we could not have believed." This statement is evidence of John Adams Unitarian beliefs and his unwillingness to accept the concept of a Triune God.

He believed in the essential goodness of creation, but not in the divinity of Christ. Everett (1966) concluded that "Adams strove for a religion based on a common sense sort of reasonableness" and maintained that religion must change and evolve toward perfection.[1][3] Fielding (1940) shows Adams condensed his beliefs as a Puritan, a Deist, and a Humanist. Adams thought Christianity had once been a fresh revelation, but had now become an instrument of superstition, fraud, and the quest for power by the unscrupulous.[2][3]

On a side note, one of the most interesting things to happen on President Adams watch was the signing of the Treaty of Tripoli. It was not only signed by John Adams but ratified unanimously by the Senate. One of our founding fathers, and his contemporaries did not in anyway object to recording for all posterity this quote; "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."[4] I was a bit stunned when I found this. I did not expect to ever find such words in an official government document. Though not relevant to Adams religious beliefs it is very relevant to the central question; is the USA a Christian nation?

Stick around for tomorrows article on John Jay. Here is a quote from him to wet your appetite; "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest, of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

Citations:
[1] Robert B. Everett, "The Mature Religious Thought of John Adams," Proceedings of the South Carolina Historical Association (1966), p 49–57
[2] Howard Ioan Fielding, "John Adams: Puritan, Deist, Humanist," Journal of Religion, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Jan., 1940), pp. 33–46
[3] Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Adams#Religious_views
[4] Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#Signing_and_ratification

Is the USA a Christian nation?

Talk about a loaded question… Still, having had this debate many times in my life with many different people of various religious backgrounds, it seemed like a good topic for additional research. Since I was putting in the time anyway I might as well share my findings with my three loyal readers. 

The first question that must be asked is how do we define ‘Christian nation’? Well there are many ways one could do this but for the purposes of this article/series we will simply attempt to define the religious beliefs of the “Founding Fathers”. Though this will not tell us their intent as they defined our government it may provide insight into their frame of mind. It is after all entirely possible that a devout Christian may not have believed Christianity was a good basis for a nation, just as it is possible that a non-Christian could view Christian virtues as imperative to a successful society. It is likely we will never know for sure one way or the other but that does not stop us from examining the evidence.

Even this approach is not as simple as it may seem. First there is the deceptively simple question of who are the founding fathers? There are many different people that participated in the framing of the Constitution, the signing of the Declaration of Independence, or who fought in the Revolutionary war. All of these people have some claim on the title of “Founding Father”.  Yet for the purposes of this article we will narrow our research to the seven founding fathers defined by Richard B. Morris’s 1973 book; Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries. These seven are Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, John Jay, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton.
 
Now that we have defined who the “founding fathers” are and that their religious beliefs will be the evidence we use to draw our conclusions. There is still one remaining problem that could cause confusion as we review their beliefs. It is the definition of those beliefs. Nearly all of the seven were religious but that does not necessarily mean ‘Christian’, therefore we must also define what a ‘Christian’ is. For the purposes of this article(s) a Christian shall be defined as one who believes in the divinity of Christ. Not just that Christ existed but that Christ is in fact the son of God.

This will be an ongoing series of articles. Each founding father deserves their own as does the summary and possibly an in dept review of the first amendment and how it has been interpreted over the years. I am not sure how long it will take to write them all but I am shooting for less than ten days. I sincerely hope you stick around for and enjoy the entire series.

American Power Act: Salvation or damnation?

The American Power Act: what does it mean for America? Salvation or damnation?

It should come as no surprise to anyone not living under a rock or spending the majority of their time at the bottom of the gulf, that the left and the right have dramatically different takes on what this bill means for Americans.

As one might suspect from the fact that the charge is being led by a liberal democrat (John Kerry) and an independent (Joe Lieberman) the left would be the side promoting the 'endless' benefits of the bill. While the right on the other hand does not seem to see any benefits. Its all down from their point of view, or left as the case may be. If you are far enough right everything is left...

The left; "Recent events are a reminder of the urgency to act. The BP oil disaster is a signal flare warning us that we must reduce our oil use via investments in more efficient, cleaner energy technologies. The Kerry-Lieberman American Power Act jump-starts efforts to adopt comprehensive clean energy and climate polices that would cut oil use, increase security, reduce pollution, and create jobs."

The right; "President Obama recently used the Gulf oil spill to stress the need for Congress to pass cap and trade, specifically the bill introduced by Senators John Kerry (D–MA) and Joe Lieberman (I–CT) after much delay. The 987-page American Power Act (APA) aims to reduce 2005 levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 80 percent by 2050, the same target that the House version passed last year.

Despite promises of consumer protection, however, the economic effects are the same. APA aims to increase energy prices, which would kill jobs and protect large corporations at the expense of the consumer—all for a minimal effect on the earth’s temperature."

The left says it will stimulate the economy; "The bill would boost employment by generating investments in the clean energy technologies of the future (Title I, Subtitle D). This means more jobs installing energy efficient windows, adding insulation, or manufacturing wind turbine parts. The bill would provide people with “Clean Energy Career Development” to prepare them to build and service these new technologies (Title IV, Subtitle B, Part I)."

The right says it will destroy it; " Cap and trade has macroeconomic effects that would do economic harm that no rebate check would cover. Higher prices lower consumer demand, and the lower demand prevents higher prices from completely offsetting production cost increases. As a result, businesses must make production cuts and reduce labor. The Congressional Budget Office recently affirmed that job losses from a slower economy would outweigh those created by clean energy investments: "Job losses in the industries that shrink would lower employment more than job gains in other industries would increase employment, thereby raising the overall unemployment rate." "

The left says it will help with the environment; "The bill would cut global warming pollution by 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020, and by 83 percent by 2050 (Title II, Subtitle A, Part A). This would dramatically reduce the likelihood of serious harms linked to global warming."

The right says no one cares; "Senator Kerry, after acknowledging that the bill is not perfect, said that “our planet cannot wait” to address climate change. The American public, however, can wait. Several recent polls have shown that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a far lower priority than economic growth."

The left says: Center for American Progress

The right says: The Heritage Foundation

You say? - The leaked draft of the legislation 5/11/10.