The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity

[rightwinger]

Sorry, but you are WRONG. Our Founders went out of their way to insure we had a secular government not tied to any religion including and especially Christianity in all its forms.

No, actually they did not. They went out of their way to insure that

A) There was no "state religion"
B) Everyone had a right to their own religion, or lack thereof - that simply isn't the same thing as saying they went out of their way to make sure we were a secular government.

I won't bore you with posting the millions of Biblical quotes from the founding fathers or multitude of Biblical pieces found in various government facilities, well unless you press it, then I will, but you are wrong.

We ABSOLUTELY were founded as a Christian nation, the founding fathers simply gave you the right to ignore the religion if you choose.

Name an American politician living or dead that has NEVER quoted the Bible.
That is what politicians do. The Founders were predominantly LAWYERS and politicians.
No where in any legal document anywhere is there any reference to us being founded as a Christian nation. Get over it. I am a Christian, the Founders were 98% Christian.
However, this nation was NOT founded on RELIGION.
Undisputed fact is that the Anglican church, the predominant church in America at that time as most of the Founders and colonists were Anglican, Episcopalian at the time. The Founders ran from that as the Colonial Episcopal church sided with the dam English.
The Founders wanted no part of that. The religous folks of that time sided with the Torries.
They wore a different jersey than the Founders.

Quoting the Bible and kissing babies are something all politicians have to do

Doesn't mean our nation was founded on kissing babies

 

[bodecea]

Sorry, but you are WRONG. Our Founders went out of their way to insure we had a secular government not tied to any religion including and especially Christianity in all its forms.

No, actually they did not. They went out of their way to insure that

A) There was no "state religion"
B) Everyone had a right to their own religion, or lack thereof - that simply isn't the same thing as saying they went out of their way to make sure we were a secular government.

I won't bore you with posting the millions of Biblical quotes from the founding fathers or multitude of Biblical pieces found in various government facilities, well unless you press it, then I will, but you are wrong.

We ABSOLUTELY were founded as a Christian nation, the founding fathers simply gave you the right to ignore the religion if you choose.

Founding fathers making quotes and biblical references on buildings are not legally binding

You can provide direct references of US laws to Christian priciples...that is what this thread is about

It is interesting that ALL of the Ten Commandments except two would be unConstitutional if codified as law. And the two (don't kill, don't steal) can be found in all governments and in all religions and even non-religious philosophies.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, it doesn't. many of the Founders are on record as saying that Christians are bad for the country. Go chew on that for awhile, and then decide which ID you want to respond as you candyass.

As you said yourself, it's your job to prove that or we'll just assume you have the previously mentioned mouth diarrhea.

"Christians are bad for the country" according to our founders. Go ahead and find the quotes that support that.

Jackass.

Well, what he had MEANT to say was

"Christians disapprove of my gay druggie lifestyle and also don't like my hippie girifriends getting abortions when they are too fucking stupid to use birth control on a regular basis, and that pisses me off so I'm going to jump on the "we're not a Christian nation" bandwagon."

And yes, he's a moron. I really think it's Sangha, very similar "debate style"

I thought Sangha was still posting.
Maybe not.
Can't find enough energy to care.

 

[Father Time]

No, actually they did not. They went out of their way to insure that

A) There was no "state religion"
B) Everyone had a right to their own religion, or lack thereof - that simply isn't the same thing as saying they went out of their way to make sure we were a secular government.

I won't bore you with posting the millions of Biblical quotes from the founding fathers or multitude of Biblical pieces found in various government facilities, well unless you press it, then I will, but you are wrong.

We ABSOLUTELY were founded as a Christian nation, the founding fathers simply gave you the right to ignore the religion if you choose.

Name an American politician living or dead that has NEVER quoted the Bible.
That is what politicians do. The Founders were predominantly LAWYERS and politicians.
No where in any legal document anywhere is there any reference to us being founded as a Christian nation. Get over it. I am a Christian, the Founders were 98% Christian.
However, this nation was NOT founded on RELIGION.
Undisputed fact is that the Anglican church, the predominant church in America at that time as most of the Founders and colonists were Anglican, Episcopalian at the time. The Founders ran from that as the Colonial Episcopal church sided with the dam English.
The Founders wanted no part of that. The religous folks of that time sided with the Torries.
They wore a different jersey than the Founders.

Name an American politician who hasn't quoted the Bible? Hmm that would seem to prove MY case that we were indeed founded as a Christian nation.

It would if being a Christian means you can't support secularism but it doesn't so it proves nothing.

What they ran from was telling people "you MUST belong to this religion" That is ALL they meant by separation of Church and state.

Yeah right. If all they meant was freedom of religion they wouldn't have put in 'respecting an establishment of religion' because freedom of religion is all ready covered by 'prohibiting free exercise'.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, actually they did not. They went out of their way to insure that

A) There was no "state religion"
B) Everyone had a right to their own religion, or lack thereof - that simply isn't the same thing as saying they went out of their way to make sure we were a secular government.

I won't bore you with posting the millions of Biblical quotes from the founding fathers or multitude of Biblical pieces found in various government facilities, well unless you press it, then I will, but you are wrong.

We ABSOLUTELY were founded as a Christian nation, the founding fathers simply gave you the right to ignore the religion if you choose.

Founding fathers making quotes and biblical references on buildings are not legally binding

You can provide direct references of US laws to Christian priciples...that is what this thread is about

It is interesting that ALL of the Ten Commandments except two would be unConstitutional if codified as law. And the two (don't kill, don't steal) can be found in all governments and in all religions and even non-religious philosophies.

No, it's illegal to bear false witness, too.

 

[bodecea]

Founding fathers making quotes and biblical references on buildings are not legally binding

You can provide direct references of US laws to Christian priciples...that is what this thread is about

It is interesting that ALL of the Ten Commandments except two would be unConstitutional if codified as law. And the two (don't kill, don't steal) can be found in all governments and in all religions and even non-religious philosophies.

No, it's illegal to bear false witness, too.

Only when under oath. Lying in and of itself is not illegal.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, if you file a false police report or you accuse someone falsely of something, that's illegal.
There are varying degrees...libel and slander are illegal as well, of course.

 

[Gadawg73]

No, actually they did not. They went out of their way to insure that

A) There was no "state religion"
B) Everyone had a right to their own religion, or lack thereof - that simply isn't the same thing as saying they went out of their way to make sure we were a secular government.

I won't bore you with posting the millions of Biblical quotes from the founding fathers or multitude of Biblical pieces found in various government facilities, well unless you press it, then I will, but you are wrong.

We ABSOLUTELY were founded as a Christian nation, the founding fathers simply gave you the right to ignore the religion if you choose.

Name an American politician living or dead that has NEVER quoted the Bible.
That is what politicians do. The Founders were predominantly LAWYERS and politicians.
No where in any legal document anywhere is there any reference to us being founded as a Christian nation. Get over it. I am a Christian, the Founders were 98% Christian.
However, this nation was NOT founded on RELIGION.
Undisputed fact is that the Anglican church, the predominant church in America at that time as most of the Founders and colonists were Anglican, Episcopalian at the time. The Founders ran from that as the Colonial Episcopal church sided with the dam English.
The Founders wanted no part of that. The religous folks of that time sided with the Torries.
They wore a different jersey than the Founders.

Name an American politician who hasn't quoted the Bible? Hmm that would seem to prove MY case that we were indeed founded as a Christian nation.

The rest of your post is a mess. 55% of the founding fathers were Episcopalian, why would they have ran from their own religion? What they ran from was telling people "you MUST belong to this religion" That is ALL they meant by separation of Church and state. Later misreadings aside. But on PRINCIPLES they were all agreed. This nation was founded on the morals taught in the Bible.

Simple analogy. I am a Christian, I raised my family in a christian atmosphere, but they are free to believe as they see fit, well within reason since they are children of course. They can choose not to believe in God if they wish but that doesn't mean that this isn't a Christian home.

Same as.................

We are not a nation founded on religion. Get over it.
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their Gods.

 

[bodecea]

No, if you file a false police report or you accuse someone falsely of something, that's illegal.
There are varying degrees...libel and slander are illegal as well, of course.

So...lying is illegal period?

 

[bodecea]

Name an American politician living or dead that has NEVER quoted the Bible.
That is what politicians do. The Founders were predominantly LAWYERS and politicians.
No where in any legal document anywhere is there any reference to us being founded as a Christian nation. Get over it. I am a Christian, the Founders were 98% Christian.
However, this nation was NOT founded on RELIGION.
Undisputed fact is that the Anglican church, the predominant church in America at that time as most of the Founders and colonists were Anglican, Episcopalian at the time. The Founders ran from that as the Colonial Episcopal church sided with the dam English.
The Founders wanted no part of that. The religous folks of that time sided with the Torries.
They wore a different jersey than the Founders.

Name an American politician who hasn't quoted the Bible? Hmm that would seem to prove MY case that we were indeed founded as a Christian nation.

The rest of your post is a mess. 55% of the founding fathers were Episcopalian, why would they have ran from their own religion? What they ran from was telling people "you MUST belong to this religion" That is ALL they meant by separation of Church and state. Later misreadings aside. But on PRINCIPLES they were all agreed. This nation was founded on the morals taught in the Bible.

Simple analogy. I am a Christian, I raised my family in a christian atmosphere, but they are free to believe as they see fit, well within reason since they are children of course. They can choose not to believe in God if they wish but that doesn't mean that this isn't a Christian home.

Same as.................

We are not a nation founded on religion. Get over it.
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their Gods.

"men and THEIR gods." Well put.

 

[ConHog]

Name an American politician living or dead that has NEVER quoted the Bible.
That is what politicians do. The Founders were predominantly LAWYERS and politicians.
No where in any legal document anywhere is there any reference to us being founded as a Christian nation. Get over it. I am a Christian, the Founders were 98% Christian.
However, this nation was NOT founded on RELIGION.
Undisputed fact is that the Anglican church, the predominant church in America at that time as most of the Founders and colonists were Anglican, Episcopalian at the time. The Founders ran from that as the Colonial Episcopal church sided with the dam English.
The Founders wanted no part of that. The religous folks of that time sided with the Torries.
They wore a different jersey than the Founders.

Name an American politician who hasn't quoted the Bible? Hmm that would seem to prove MY case that we were indeed founded as a Christian nation.

The rest of your post is a mess. 55% of the founding fathers were Episcopalian, why would they have ran from their own religion? What they ran from was telling people "you MUST belong to this religion" That is ALL they meant by separation of Church and state. Later misreadings aside. But on PRINCIPLES they were all agreed. This nation was founded on the morals taught in the Bible.

Simple analogy. I am a Christian, I raised my family in a christian atmosphere, but they are free to believe as they see fit, well within reason since they are children of course. They can choose not to believe in God if they wish but that doesn't mean that this isn't a Christian home.

Same as.................

We are not a nation founded on religion. Get over it.
We are a nation of LAWS, not men and their Gods.

Get over it i find this thread mildly amusing in that some of you go out of your way to avoid the obvious, but as for getting over, I was never on it to begin with.

 

[AllieBaba]

No, if you file a false police report or you accuse someone falsely of something, that's illegal.
There are varying degrees...libel and slander are illegal as well, of course.

So...lying is illegal period?

Just saying.

 

[AllieBaba]

And adultery used to be illegal.

 

[Intense]

The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity
Many Christian's who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration of Independence as "proof" of a Christian America. ...
The U.S. NOT founded upon Christianity - Cached - Similar

Our Founding Fathers Were NOT Christians They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. .... Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural .... He led the men who turned America from an English colony into a self-governing nation. ...
Thomas Jefferson - John Adams - Benjamin Franklin - Thomas Painefreethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html - Cached - Similar

Memorial and Remonstrance
Against Religious Assessments

James Madison

[1785]




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------








To the Honorable the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia
A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments


We the subscribers , citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined. We remonstrate against the said Bill,
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

Because Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former. Their jurisdiction is both derivative and limited: it is limited with regard to the co-ordinate departments, more necessarily is it limited with regard to the constituents. The preservation of a free Government requires not merely, that the metes and bounds which separate each department of power be invariably maintained; but more especially that neither of them be suffered to overleap the great Barrier which defends the rights of the people. The Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment, exceed the commission from which they derive their authority, and are Tyrants. The People who submit to it are governed by laws made neither by themselves nor by an authority derived from them, and are slaves.

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entagled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

Because the Bill violates the equality which ought to be the basis of every law, and which is more indispensible, in proportion as the validity or expediency of any law is more liable to be impeached. If "all men are by nature equally free and independent," all men are to be considered as entering into Society on equal conditions; as relinquishing no more, and therefore retaining no less, one than another, of their natural rights. Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered. As the Bill violates equality by subjecting some to peculiar burdens, so it violates the same principle, by granting to others peculiar exemptions. Are the quakers and Menonists the only sects who think a compulsive support of their Religions unnecessary and unwarrantable? can their piety alone be entrusted with the care of public worship? Ought their Religions to be endowed above all others with extraordinary privileges by which proselytes may be enticed from all others? We think too favorably of the justice and good sense of these demoninations to believe that they either covet pre-eminences over their fellow citizens or that they will be seduced by them from the common opposition to the measure.

Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

Because experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

Because the establishment in question is not necessary for the support of Civil Government. If it be urged as necessary for the support of Civil Government only as it is a means of supporting Religion, and it be not necessary for the latter purpose, it cannot be necessary for the former. If Religion be not within the cognizance of Civil Government how can its legal establishment be necessary to Civil Government? What influence in fact have ecclesiastical establishments had on Civil Society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not. Such a Government will be best supported by protecting every Citizen in the enjoyment of his Religion with the same equal hand which protects his person and his property; by neither invading the equal rights of any Sect, nor suffering any Sect to invade those of another.

Because the proposed establishment is a departure from the generous policy, which, offering an Asylum to the persecuted and oppressed of every Nation and Religion, promised a lustre to our country, and an accession to the number of its citizens. What a melancholy mark is the Bill of sudden degeneracy? Instead of holding forth an Asylum to the persecuted, it is itself a signal of persecution. It degrades from the equal rank of Citizens all those whose opinions in Religion do not bend to those of the Legislative authority. Distant as it may be in its present form from the Inquisition, it differs from it only in degree. The one is the first step, the other the last in the career of intolerance. The maganimous sufferer under this cruel scourge in foreign Regions, must view the Bill as a Beacon on our Coast, warning him to seek some other haven, where liberty and philanthrophy in their due extent, may offer a more certain respose from his Troubles.

Because it will have a like tendency to banish our Citizens. The allurements presented by other situations are every day thinning their number. To superadd a fresh motive to emigration by revoking the liberty which they now enjoy, would be the same species of folly which has dishonoured and depopulated flourishing kingdoms

Because it will destroy that moderation and harmony which the forbearance of our laws to intermeddle with Religion has produced among its several sects. Torrents of blood have been split in the old world, by vain attempts of the secular arm, to extinguish Religious disscord, by proscribing all difference in Religious opinion. Time has at length revealed the true remedy. Every relaxation of narrow and rigorous policy, wherever it has been tried, has been found to assauge the disease. The American Theatre has exhibited proofs that equal and compleat liberty, if it does not wholly eradicate it, sufficiently destroys its malignant influence on the health and prosperity of the State. If with the salutary effects of this system under our own eyes, we begin to contract the bounds of Religious freedom, we know no name that will too severely reproach our folly. At least let warning be taken at the first fruits of the threatened innovation. The very appearance of the Bill has transformed "that Christian forbearance, love and chairty," which of late mutually prevailed, into animosities and jeolousies, which may not soon be appeased. What mischiefs may not be dreaded, should this enemy to the public quiet be armed with the force of a law?

Because the policy of the Bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity. The first wish of those who enjoy this precious gift ought to be that it may be imparted to the whole race of mankind. Compare the number of those who have as yet received it with the number still remaining under the dominion of false Religions; and how small is the former! Does the policy of the Bill tend to lessen the disproportion? No; it at once discourages those who are strangers to the light of revelation from coming into the Region of it; and countenances by example the nations who continue in darkness, in shutting out those who might convey it to them. Instead of Levelling as far as possible, every obstacle to the victorious progress of Truth, the Bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it with a wall of defence against the encroachments of error.

Because attempts to enforce by legal sanctions, acts obnoxious to go great a proportion of Citizens, tend to enervate the laws in general, and to slacken the bands of Society. If it be difficult to execute any law which is not generally deemed necessary or salutary, what must be the case, where it is deemed invalid and dangerous? And what may be the effect of so striking an example of impotency in the Government, on its general authority?

Because a measure of such singular magnitude and delicacy ought not to be imposed, without the clearest evidence that it is called for by a majority of citizens, and no satisfactory method is yet proposed by which the voice of the majority in this case may be determined, or its influence secured. The people of the respective counties are indeed requested to signify their opinion respecting the adoption of the Bill to the next Session of Assembly." But the representatives or of the Counties will be that of the people. Our hope is that neither of the former will, after due consideration, espouse the dangerous principle of the Bill. Should the event disappoint us, it will still leave us in full confidence, that a fair appeal to the latter will reverse the sentence against our liberties.

Because finally, "the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience" is held by the same tenure with all our other rights. If we recur to its origin, it is equally the gift of nature; if we weigh its importance, it cannot be less dear to us; if we consult the "Declaration of those rights which pertain to the good people of Vriginia, as the basis and foundation of Government," it is enumerated with equal solemnity, or rather studied emphasis. Either the, we must say, that the Will of the Legislature is the only measure of their authority; and that in the plenitude of this authority, they may sweep away all our fundamental rights; or, that they are bound to leave this particular right untouched and sacred: Either we must say, that they may controul the freedom of the press, may abolish the Trial by Jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary Powers of the State; nay that they may despoil us of our very right of suffrage, and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary Assembly or, we must say, that they have no authority to enact into the law the Bill under consideration.
We the Subscribers say, that the General Assembly of this Commonwealth have no such authority: And that no effort may be omitted on our part against so dangerous an usurpation, we oppose to it, this remonstrance; earnestly praying, as we are in duty bound, that the Supreme Lawgiver of the Universe, by illuminating those to whom it is addressed, may on the one hand, turn their Councils from every act which would affront his holy prerogative, or violate the trust committed to them: and on the other, guide them into every measure which may be worthy of his [blessing, may re]dound to their own praise, and may establish more firmly the liberties, the prosperity and the happiness of the Commonwealth.
Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)

 

[AllieBaba]

I don't understand what your point is.

 

[Gadawg73]

Madison was a Founding Father. Heopposed ANY religous influence in government. That was one of his many objections.
The religous Christians of his day wanted to access a tax for Christian schools. He opposed it just like he opposed any religous influence in our new government.
Read and see why. This opinion was the MAJORITY opinion of the Founders.
They wanted no part of religion in government and certainly did not found our government on religion.

 

[AllieBaba]

You guys don't get it.

There's a difference between using the government to promote a particular religion, and using the bible as the framework of a government.

Our government doesn't promote Christianity, and nobody should ever be discriminated against based upon their religion.

Nobody who is vocal about their beliefs should EVER be discriminated against BY the government...and that protection covers Christians as well.

 

[Christopher]

The answer regarding whether the US was founded upon Christianity is I believe more complex than the OP has stated. Were many of the original settlers Christians? Yes. Was American culture strongly influenced by Christianity? Yes. Was the original intent of the Constitution to establish Christianity in America? No.

I think the founders did have Judeo-Christian principles in mind when writing the Constitution. Historical writing shows the faith and belief of many of the founders and that they were very much influenced by their Christian beliefs. I also think that many of the quotes found which seem to be a “slam” against Christianity are really an outward showing of distaste for the organized Christian religions of the time and the hypocrisy of not following Christian teachings.

In other words, many of those who professed to be Christian did not actually strive to follow Christian teachings. I view some of our founders as wanting to change this and for people to return to actually following Christian teachings. Yes, there were deists among the founders, however, I think the lack of Christians striving to follow Christian teachings may have precipitated some to be disenfranchised with organized religion and "created" these deists.

Regardless, it is clear to me that our country would be much different without the influence of Christianity through the country’s individual Christians. There are too many who try to diminish the positive effect Christianity has had on America, including the framing of the Constitution. In the end, each country is built by the individuals that occupy it and the majority of the founding Americans were Christian. To try and say this did not have an effect on the establishment of America and on writing the Constitution would be incorrect.

 

[JBeukema]

I didn't bother reading any of this thread; I just don't understand how y'all have gone for 19 pages about something that was made as clear as day in 1796:

[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion

Signed by John Adams

 

[AllieBaba]

It's founded on Christian VALUES you nincompoop.

Nobody except the idiot left has ever said it was founded on the Christian religion.