Why the US is not a Christian Nation! (hell, abortion, divorce)

[ptsum]

Okay folks, here's a little history for you. The U.S. Supreme Court in its ruling on a case in the State of Maryland, Torcaso v. Watkins on April 24, 1961. The Supreme Court unanimously found that Maryland's requirement for a person holding public office to state a belief in God violated the 1st and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

The Court had previously established in Everson v. Board of Education (1947)

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the first amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which would aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or forced him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion.

Torcaso v. Watkins: Information from Answers.com, Here's the case, I would suggest you read it very carefully and just to add, here's a few more Supreme Court decisions on Separation of Church & State.

U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Separation of Church and State

[gabfest]

Originally Posted by Voyageur

Right -- that's just it -- there is no requirement of religion to be elected to an office.

You said this:

The religious-test text is a bar on government requirements; it does not speak to the myriad whims of voters. So claiming it is wrong based on what certain voters do is nonsensical. And wrong.

Your claim is thus false. Period.

PS - you're hardly the first to make this mistake. I've seen many do it. However, most usually get a clue once it is pointed out that the Constitution speaks to state action, not personal preferences.

Thanks for getting me told. Period.

I think the prerequisite I had in mind was the obvious; candidates must have some type of religious affiliation/back ground in order to be considered seriously for political offices, certainly this is true for the upper eschelons of the political arena. Can you name any atheist in a political office? This is not a requirement on paper but it is a requirement just the same.

[nana053]

Originally Posted by gabfest

Thanks for getting me told. Period.

I think the prerequisite I had in mind was the obvious; candidates must have some type of religious affiliation/back ground in order to be considered seriously for political offices, certainly this is true for the upper eschelons of the political arena. Can you name any atheist in a political office? This is not a requirement on paper but it is a requirement just the same.

This is changing though as more atheists come out of the closet

At Mayor's Breakfast, 'Interfaith' Means Atheists, Too - NYTimes.com

Six newcomers to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s annual interfaith breakfast stood out in the crowd of more than 400 religious leaders draped in vestments varying from turban to cassock. But the coterie did not draw attention because of unusual garb; this group included the first nonbelievers invited to the breakfast in the eight years that Mr. Bloomberg has held it.

From 1992 to 1994, atheist Lori Lipman Brown was state senator from Nevada.
From 1939 to 1943, Culbert Olson was governor of California
In 1931, Pete Stark was the first openly atheist member of congress - democrat from California
Cecil Bothwell was elected on November 3, 2009, to the city council after he won the third highest number of votes in the city election (Of course, the opposition challenged him on the grounds that NC has a prohibition on atheists serving).

[Thomas R.]

He's largely right, although like many people he maybe overplays his hand a little.

In the days of the Founders the Federal government was secular, but the state governments were allowed to be religious. Connecticut had a de-facto established church until 1818, in Maryland Jews were not allowed to be attorneys until 1826, and New Hampshire didn't allow Catholics to hold office until 1876.

Connecticut: The Constitution State - Google Books

The History and Politics of Voting ... - Google Books

And John Jay was intensely religious and a bit of a religious bigot.

[GldnRule]

AGAIN: The people in the government can write all they want about what we can do, what we can't do, what we have to do, and what we don't have to do...it means squat to how things have REALLY gone down.

Since the hostile takeover of this land (mostly by brutal force) from the indigenous people (indicative of the kind of people our "founders" really were)...based on the profile...this country has been, is, and will probably for some time be, a Christian Nation.

We can note all the Federal and State "laws" we want...it means squat to the Real Deal.
I can cite Federal and State laws all unanimously proscribing breaking the posed speed limit while operating a vehicle on the Federal and State roadways...it doesn't stop over 90% of the drivers from breaking the limit most every time they get behind the wheel. We are a "speeding nation"...in spite of all the laws proscribing it.

Based on the laws...we didn't, and don't, HAVE to be a Christian Nation. That hasn't changed the fact that for the past 200+ years, we HAVE been...and STILL are.
They can write whatever they want, and pass whatever rulings they want...but, THAT'S REALITY!

[jazzarama]

Originally Posted by Thomas R.

He's largely right, although like many people he maybe overplays his hand a little.

In the days of the Founders the Federal government was secular, but the state governments were allowed to be religious. Connecticut had a de-facto established church until 1818, in Maryland Jews were not allowed to be attorneys until 1826, and New Hampshire didn't allow Catholics to hold office until 1876.

Connecticut: The Constitution State - Google Books

The History and Politics of Voting ... - Google Books

And John Jay was intensely religious and a bit of a religious bigot.

Yes, there was a time when the constitutional words, 'Congress shall pass no law...' actually meant Congress. States had religious tests for office, official state churches, blasphemy laws, all sorts of christian-based laws.

Though we never were meant to have a purely Christian federal government, practically everything related to values and customs were christian-oriented.

[Fiyero]

The US has never been based on Christianity. The majority of the population claiming to be Christian, doesn't mean it was founded on that religion. And most of the founder's version of Christianity would be opposed by conservative Christians today. Jefferson for example, rejected Jesus' Divinity, the trinity, miracles, atonement, the virgin birth, most of the Bible, and called Revelation the ravings of a manic.

Ben Franklin also questioned Jesus' divinity and frankly didn't care that much about it aside from he valued Jesus' moral code. John Adams rejected the trinity I believe as well.

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. - Treaty of Tripoli

That was unanimously signed by the entire Congress and the President. Treaties are the Supreme law of the land so long as they don't conflict with the Constitution.

[jazzarama]

I said, the federal government wasn't founded on Christianity. However, the Constitution left states free to inject religion into laws. Our history is proof.

To deny that our nation's history was influenced Primarily by christian thought is to deny historical fact.

Article XI of the Treaty of Tripoli is disputed. Even if legitimate, it was not in the renegotiated 1805 Treaty of Tripoli, a fact ignored whenever the 1st treaty is used as 'proof' that we weren't a christian nation.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by gabfest

That's just it. The candidates must have some type of religion and not just any of the religions will do. Religion is a prerequisite to politics. It's not coincidental.

That is how they have it in theocratic societies, for example, Iran. And such idiocy doesn't limit itself to one religion or one nation. Such people can be found virtually anywhere in the world. So, no it is not coincidental, at all.

[EinsteinsGhost]

Originally Posted by jazzarama

I said, the federal government wasn't founded on Christianity. However, the Constitution left states free to inject religion into laws. Our history is proof.
To deny that our nation's history was influenced Primarily by christian thought is to deny historical fact.

James Madison, and the leading founder recognized the fact that people’s rights ought to be protected. But being a part of federal authority themselves, they spoke mostly of themselves. However, during his speech while presenting the Bill of Rights, Madison made it clear that he saw the same oppressive instincts in state governments that were being checked via the bill on the federal authority, and that the states ought to incorporate such ideas of freedom in their constitutions.


So, he didn’t exactly go the distance and force it on the states, acting on good faith (even after having dealt with the need to quickly jump from the “states’ rights” Articles of Confederation to the “more federalist less states’ rights” Constitution). The lack of forcefulness likely had its root on the ground the USA was constructed, from independent colonies to states to work themselves into a nation.


Having said that, the idea that secularism must prevail in governance does come from the Christian thought and actions that forced a few to board the Mayflower. The founders recognized the need that EVERY religion ought to be protected, especially from the whims of the majority. And that wasn't what they had learned about the ruling sect of Christianity in England couple of centuries before them.