Was the US founded on christian beliefs?

[Cearl]

This is fine and all,wanting America to be secular, but lets focus on the real problems people. America may be very religious, but many other nations are even more so, to appalling extremes. I take Saudi Arabia, worst of the worst. I'm embarrassed for the human race that this nation even exists.

I personally respect their rights to religion, and as bullshit as I think it is, it is their right to beleive in it.

[Enadail]

Yes, the U.S.A. was founded on Christian beliefs, however the the governance of the nation was not designed to be beholden to one particular religious view.

The founding document, the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:
Paragraph 1, "...and of Nature's God....'
Paragraph 2, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...."
Last Paragraph, "...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world....", "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,...."

Nature's God - Not a christian thing
Creator - every religion has a Creation myth
Supreme Judge of the world - sounds more Muslim to me
Divine Providence - again not solely a christian consept

... you know... by this reasoning. "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" then doesn't refer to the Christian God, but can refer to any supreme being.

The intention was quite clearly the Christian God, but as it was added about 60 years ago, I'm gonna go ahead and say its unconstitutional. Even if it did refer to any supreme being, what about those who don't believe in a supreme being?

[Milks Empire]

True. Still, it doesn't appear to be coincidence that the U.S. has a history of being dickheads to just non-Protestants.

Fixed in light of how Catholics have been treated nationwide until very very recently and the still pervasive (if unofficial) discrimination against Jews, Mormons, Muslims, and any of the non-Abrahamic faiths.

True, but that has very little, if anything to do with the actual founding of the country, unless you want to claim that it was founded specifically to discriminate...

Touché.
I wasn't trying to argue that point so much as argue that it's more than just non-Christians that faced discrimination.

[The Cat-Tribe]

Yes, the U.S.A. was founded on Christian beliefs, however the the governance of the nation was not designed to be beholden to one particular religious view.

The founding document, the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:
Paragraph 1, "...and of Nature's God....'
Paragraph 2, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...."
Last Paragraph, "...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world....", "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,...."

Nature's God - Not a christian thing
Creator - every religion has a Creation myth
Supreme Judge of the world - sounds more Muslim to me
Divine Providence - again not solely a christian consept

... you know... by this reasoning. "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" then doesn't refer to the Christian God, but can refer to any supreme being.

... which still violates separation of Church and State. Thank you for playing.

[JuNii]

... you know... by this reasoning. "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" then doesn't refer to the Christian God, but can refer to any supreme being.

... which still violates separation of Church and State. Thank you for playing.

didn't some Court somewhere find that 'In God We Trust' and 'One Nation Under God' did infact NOT violate the separation of Church and State?

[The Cat-Tribe]

... you know... by this reasoning. "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" then doesn't refer to the Christian God, but can refer to any supreme being.

... which still violates separation of Church and State. Thank you for playing.

didn't some Court somewhere find that 'In God We Trust' and 'One Nation Under God' did infact NOT violate the separation of Church and State?

Not to my knowledge, but it may well have happened in some court other than SCOTUS. So what?

[Dyakovo]

Yes, the U.S.A. was founded on Christian beliefs, however the the governance of the nation was not designed to be beholden to one particular religious view.

The founding document, the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE:
Paragraph 1, "...and of Nature's God....'
Paragraph 2, "...that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator...."
Last Paragraph, "...appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world....", "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,...."

Nature's God - Not a christian thing
Creator - every religion has a Creation myth
Supreme Judge of the world - sounds more Muslim to me
Divine Providence - again not solely a christian consept

... you know... by this reasoning. "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" then doesn't refer to the Christian God, but can refer to any supreme being.

True, but the implementation of those phrases make it clear that they are indeed referring to the christian god.

[JuNii]

didn't some Court somewhere find that 'In God We Trust' and 'One Nation Under God' did infact NOT violate the separation of Church and State?

Not to my knowledge, but it may well have happened in some court other than SCOTUS. So what?

if it was ruled that it didn't Violate the separation of church and state, how can it be said to be a violation?

*looking for ruling...*

EDIT: found several references, however since they're all christian sites...

[JuNii]

Nature's God - Not a christian thing
Creator - every religion has a Creation myth
Supreme Judge of the world - sounds more Muslim to me
Divine Providence - again not solely a christian consept

... you know... by this reasoning. "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" then doesn't refer to the Christian God, but can refer to any supreme being.

True, but the implementation of those phrases make it clear that they are indeed referring to the christian god.

and the same can be said for Creator, Supreme Judge of the world, Nature's God and so forth...

[Ifreann]

... you know... by this reasoning. "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" then doesn't refer to the Christian God, but can refer to any supreme being.

True, but the implementation of those phrases make it clear that they are indeed referring to the christian god.

No other religion really refers to their divine being as "God". Except jews, but I think they take the 2nd Commandment a bit more seriously than christians.

[Dyakovo]

... you know... by this reasoning. "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" then doesn't refer to the Christian God, but can refer to any supreme being.

True, but the implementation of those phrases make it clear that they are indeed referring to the christian god.

and the same can be said for Creator, Supreme Judge of the world, Nature's God and so forth...

Creator yes.
Supreme Judge of the world - as I said before the phrasing makes it sound much more like it belongs with Islam (at least to me).
Nature's God - Not a christian Concept.

[JuNii]

True, but the implementation of those phrases make it clear that they are indeed referring to the christian god.

No other religion really refers to their divine being as "God". Except jews, but I think they take the 2nd Commandment a bit more seriously than christians.

isn't "Allah" arabic for "God"?

[Galloism]

isn't "Allah" islamic for "God"?

[picking nits]Islam is a language now? [/picking nits]

[The Cat-Tribe]

didn't some Court somewhere find that 'In God We Trust' and 'One Nation Under God' did infact NOT violate the separation of Church and State?

Not to my knowledge, but it may well have happened in some court other than SCOTUS. So what?

if it was ruled that it didn't Violate the separation of church and state, how can it be said to be a violation?

*looking for ruling...*

EDIT: found several references, however since they're all christian sites...

I dont' know about you but I don't agree with every decision SCOTUS makes -- let alone every decision made by any court anywhere.

[Dyakovo]

No other religion really refers to their divine being as "God". Except jews, but I think they take the 2nd Commandment a bit more seriously than christians.

isn't "Allah" arabic for "God"?

Fixed

[JuNii]

True, but the implementation of those phrases make it clear that they are indeed referring to the christian god.

and the same can be said for Creator, Supreme Judge of the world, Nature's God and so forth...

Creator yes.
Supreme Judge of the world - as I said before the phrasing makes it sound much more like it belongs with Islam (at least to me).
Nature's God - Not a christian Concept.

God is still referred to as the Supreme Judge. after all, in Revelations, he does Judge us.
and nature's God. if one believes that God created all things around us, that would make Him 'Nature's God.'

[JuNii]

No other religion really refers to their divine being as "God". Except jews, but I think they take the 2nd Commandment a bit more seriously than christians.

isn't "Allah" arabic for "God"?

Fixed

Thanks.

[Ifreann]

No other religion really refers to their divine being as "God". Except jews, but I think they take the 2nd Commandment a bit more seriously than christians.

isn't "Allah" islamic for "God"?

Arabic, I believe. And yes, the Muslims slipped my mind.

[JuNii]

I dont' know about you but I don't agree with every decision SCOTUS makes -- let alone every decision made by any court anywhere.

yet you will stand by their decisions whether or not you agree with that decision.

or were you simply stating your opinon that those phrases violate the Separation of Church and state. if you were, then apologies.

[JuNii]

isn't "Allah" arabic for "God"?

[picking nits]Islam is a language now? [/picking nits]

Consider my nit sufficently picked.

[Trefoilland]

"In God We Trust."

[The Black Forrest]

"In God We Trust."

I never understood that?

Money? By stamping that on it aren't we saying "In God We Trust Money?"

[JuNii]

"In God We Trust."

I never understood that?

Money? By stamping that on it aren't we saying "In God We Trust Money?"

I know some people didn't want that on money becuase it looked like we were calling Money 'God'.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I dont' know about you but I don't agree with every decision SCOTUS makes -- let alone every decision made by any court anywhere.

yet you will stand by their decisions whether or not you agree with that decision.

or were you simply stating your opinon that those phrases violate the Separation of Church and state. if you were, then apologies.

I will challenge and seek to overturn decisions I don't agree with.

On this point, SCOTUS has not spoken. Applying the holdings and logic of past SCOTUS cases, it is my opinion (of course, who's would it be?) that the laws enshrining those phrases violate the separation of Church and State.

The 9th Circuit opinion in Newdow speaks for itself. Here is just one part:

In the context of the Pledge, the statement that the United States is a nation “under God” is an endorsement of religion. It is a profession of a religious belief, namely, a belief in monotheism. The recitation that ours is a nation “under God” is not a mere acknowledgment that many Americans believe in a deity. Nor is it merely descriptive of the undeniable historical significance of religion in the founding of the Republic. Rather, the phrase “one nation under God” in the context of the Pledge is normative. To recite the Pledge is not to describe the United States; instead, it is to swear allegiance to the values for which the flag stands: unity, indivisibility, liberty, justice, and — since 1954 — monotheism. The text of the official Pledge, codified in federal law, impermissibly takes a position with respect to the purely religious question of the existence and identity of God. A profession that we are a nation “under God” is identical, for Establishment Clause purposes, to a profession that we are a nation “under Jesus,” a nation “under Vishnu,” a nation “under Zeus,” or a nation “under no god,” because none of these professions can be neutral with respect to religion. “[T]he government must pursue a course of complete neutrality toward religion.” Wallace, 472 U.S. at 60. Furthermore, the school district’s practice of teacher-led recitation of the Pledge aims to inculcate in students a respect for the ideals set forth in the Pledge, and thus amounts to state endorsement of these ideals. Although students cannot be forced to participate in recitation of the Pledge, the school district is nonetheless conveying a message of state endorsement of a religious belief when it requires public school teachers to recite, and lead the recitation of, the current form of the Pledge.

.... “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Id. at 642.

The Pledge, as currently codified, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers “that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.” Lynch, 465 U.S. at 688 (O’Connor, J., concurring). Justice Kennedy, in his dissent in Allegheny, agreed:
By statute, the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
describes the United States as ‘one nation under
God.’ To be sure, no one is obligated to recite this
phrase, . . . but it borders on sophistry to suggest that
the reasonable atheist would not feel less than a full
member of the political community every time his
fellow Americans recited, as part of their expression
of patriotism and love for country, a phrase he
believed to be false.
Allegheny, 492 U.S. at 672 (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).

[JuNii]

[snipped]

Found this.

The "In God we Trust" motto promotes theistic religion at the expense of non theistic religion and a secular lifestyle. It promotes the belief in a single, male deity which is followed by the main Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam; however, it is foreign to the beliefs of many other religions: Buddhists do not believe in a personal deity; Zoroastrians and Wiccans believe in two deities; Hindus believe in many. It would seem to violate the principle of separation of church and state. Many Agnostics, Atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, other Neopagans, and others are offended by the motto. However, the religious motto has been challenged by three lawsuits and has been found to be constitutional. The courts basically found that the motto does not endorse religion.

"Aronow v. United States," 432 F.2d 242 (1970) in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit The court ruled that:
"It is quite obvious that the national motto and the slogan on coinage and currency 'In God We Trust' has nothing whatsoever to do with the establishment of religion. Its use is of patriotic or ceremonial character and bears no true resemblance to a governmental sponsorship of a religious exercise."

"Madalyn Murray O'Hair, et al. v. W. Michael Blumenthal, Secretary of Treasury, et al." 588 F.2d 1144 (1979) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Ms. O'Hair is (in)famous for successfully challenging compulsory prayer in U.S. public schools. The United States District Court, Western District of Texas, referring to the wording of the Ninth Circuit above, ruled that:

"From this it is easy to deduce that the Court concluded that the primary purpose of the slogan was secular; it served as secular ceremonial purpose in the obviously secular function of providing a medium of exchange. As such it is equally clear that the use of the motto on the currency or otherwise does not have a primary effect of advancing religion."

This ruling was sustained by the Fifth Circuit court. 1

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. conducted a national survey which showed that "In God We Trust" was regarded as religious by an overwhelming percentage of U.S. citizens. They initiated a lawsuit on 1994-JUN-8 in Denver CO to have it removed from U.S. paper currency and coins. They also wanted it to be discontinued as the national motto. Their lawsuit was dismissed by the district Court without trial, on the grounds that "In God We Trust" is not a religious phrase! The Tenth-Circuit federal judge confirmed the dismissal, stating in part:

"...we find that a reasonable observer, aware of the purpose, context, and history of the phrase 'In God we trust,' would not consider its use or its reproduction on U.S. currency to be an endorsement of religion." 5

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to review all of these rulings. It might be embarrassing to them, because the motto also hangs on the wall at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has commented in passing on the motto saying that:

"[o]ur previous opinions have considered in dicta the motto and the pledge [of allegiance], characterizing them as consistent with the proposition that government may not communicate an endorsement of religious belief." Allegheny, 492 U.S.

So I am partially correct. some courts did find that the phrase was not in violation and yes, SCotUS did NOT rule on it. tho the comment was reportedly said. (can't find any offical document with that comment on it... yet) so I'm taking that with a grain of salt.