Was the US founded on christian beliefs?

[Grave_n_idle]

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 would still be discriminating against us godless heathens...

[JuNii]

it is my opinion (of course, who's would it be?) that the laws enshrining those phrases violate the separation of Church and State.

ah... then I stand back. after all, you tend to put forth such statements and backthem up with such overwhelming facts that it's hard to tell when you're opinionating or laying a fact heavy smakdown.

[JuNii]

Which would still be discriminating against us godless heathens...

or coddling those who... how did some put it... needs an invisible man in the sky to watch their every move.

[Muravyets]

U.S. discrimination against non-Christians, based on religion (Part I)
1) http://www.religioustolerance.org/tomek22.htm

<snipped to save space>

This is just the beginning.

I don't think that says what you think it says. The way I read it, it seems pretty clear that religion was not the dominating question driving discrimination. Also, fyi, an article that is specifically about religious discrimination (which I actually don't think your source works as) is not going to show me that there were no other, more dominant points of discrimination at work.

[SaintB]

No the USA was not founded as a Christian or indeed any religion, nation. It was founded based upon the principles of morality and liberty. Morality is not necesarily a religious institution and liberty defies religion.

To me its very sad that so many politicians are turning it into a Christian nation, and its very clearly a violation of what the founding fathers created this nation for.

[Lizardiar]

No matter what you do I shall still say one nation under God and pray to him in public places.

[SaintB]

No matter what you do I shall still say one nation under God and pray to him in public places.

Good for you, doesn't change that this was created as a secular nation.

[Muravyets]

No matter what you do I shall still say one nation under God and pray to him in public places.

Who's stopping you?

[SaintB]

No matter what you do I shall still say one nation under God and pray to him in public places.

Who's stopping you?

Us evil godless liberals.

[Lizardiar]

Us evil godless liberals.

When you tell us that we need to get God out of our opinions, kinda.

[SaintB]

Us evil godless liberals.

When you tell us that we need to get God out of our opinions, kinda.

I (and most people I know) never said anything about taking God out of opinions, but we do need to take God out of Laws, God out of government functions, God out of schools, and etc.

[Chrobalta]

[Intangelon]

Us evil godless liberals.

When you tell us that we need to get God out of our opinions, kinda.

"We" don't tell you that at all, and you know it. All "we" tell you is that YOU need to get YOUR God out of "our" opinions.

Fair enough?

[Antilon]

U.S. Discrimination against non-Christians, based on religion (Part 2)

*Sorry for the delay, 4th of July Party*

1) Mount Rushmore

Almighty God, from this pulpit of stone the American people render thanksgiving and praise for the new era of civilization brought forth upon this continent. Centuries of tyrannical oppression sent to these shores, God-fearing men to seek in freedom the guidance of the benevolent hand in the progress toward wisdom, goodness toward men, and piety toward God.

1787
Then, in 1787, for the first time a government was formed that derived its just powers from the consent of the governed. General Washington and representatives from the 13 states formed this sacred Constitution, which embodies our faith in God and in mankind by giving equal participation in government to all citizens, distributing that powers of governing, threefold securing freedom of speech and of the press, establishing the right to worship the Infinite according to conscience, and assuring this nation's general welfare against an embattled world. This chart of national guidance has for more than 150 years weathered the ravages of time. Its supreme trial came under the pressure of civil war, 1861-65. The deadly doctrines of secession and slavery were then purged away in blood. The seal of the Union's finality set by President Lincoln, was accomplished like all our triumphs of law and humanity, through the wisdom and the power of an honest, Christian heart.

Far-sighted American statesmanship acquired by treaties, vast wilderness territories, where progressive, adventurous Americans spread civilization and Christianity.

1904
In 1904, the Panama Canal Zone was acquired for our people to build a navigable highway enabling the world's people to share the fruits of the earth and of human industry.

Now, these eras are welded into a nation possessing unity, liberty, power, integrity and faith in God, with responsible development of character and devoted to the performance of humanitarian duty.

Holding no fear of the economic and political, chaotic clouds hovering over the earth, the consecrated Americans dedicate this nation before God, to exalt righteousness and to maintain mankind's constituted liberties so long as the earth shall endure.

Notice that in 1787, the West was described as a "vast wilderness territories" despite the fact that Native Americans and Mexicans have been living there for centuries before the arrival of European settlers. Of course, we all know about the American "civlizing" of the West.

2) General James Rusling, “Interview with President William McKinley,” The Christian Advocate 22 January 1903, 17. Reprinted in Daniel Schirmer and Stephen Rosskamm Shalom, eds., The Philippines Reader (Boston: South End Press, 1987), 22–23.

Hold a moment longer! Not quite yet, gentlemen! Before you go I would like to say just a word about the Philippine business. I have been criticized a good deal about the Philippines, but don’t deserve it. The truth is I didn’t want the Philippines, and when they came to us, as a gift from the gods, I did not know what to do with them. When the Spanish War broke out Dewey was at Hongkong, and I ordered him to go to Manila and to capture or destroy the Spanish fleet, and he had to; because, if defeated, he had no place to refit on that side of the globe, and if the Dons were victorious they would likely cross the Pacific and ravage our Oregon and California coasts. And so he had to destroy the Spanish fleet, and did it! But that was as far as I thought then.

When I next realized that the Philippines had dropped into our laps I confess I did not know what to do with them. I sought counsel from all sides—Democrats as well as Republicans—but got little help. I thought first we would take only Manila; then Luzon; then other islands perhaps also. I walked the floor of the White House night after night until midnight; and I am not ashamed to tell you, gentlemen, that I went down on my knees and prayed Almighty God for light and guidance more than one night. And one night late it came to me this way—I don’t know how it was, but it came: (1) That we could not give them back to Spain—that would be cowardly and dishonorable; (2) that we could not turn them over to France and Germany—our commercial rivals in the Orient—that would be bad business and discreditable; (3) that we could not leave them to themselves—they were unfit for self-government—and they would soon have anarchy and misrule over there worse than Spain’s was; and (4) that there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them, as our fellow-men for whom Christ also died. And then I went to bed, and went to sleep, and slept soundly, and the next morning I sent for the chief engineer of the War Department (our map-maker), and I told him to put the Philippines on the map of the United States (pointing to a large map on the wall of his office), and there they are, and there they will stay while I am President!

With the "acceptance" of the Philippines came the Philippine-American War, as the U.S. sought to "uplife and civilize and Christianize" the natives. Unfortunetly, this resulted in the deaths of many Filipinos, with estimates ranging from 250,000 to 500,00, with the majority being civilians/non-combatants. One notable "incident" (in the loosest sense of the word) was the massacre of anyone over the age of ten years old.

[The Black Forrest]

Us evil godless liberals.

When you tell us that we need to get God out of our opinions, kinda.

Nobody said you can't do that.

We don't like the effort to control what we read, control what we see on TV or at moves, control whom we date/love, indoctrinate our children, etc., etc.

We have no problem with you living your life as you see fit. Don't expect us to live your life.

[Antilon]

I don't think that says what you think it says. The way I read it, it seems pretty clear that religion was not the dominating question driving discrimination. Also, fyi, an article that is specifically about religious discrimination (which I actually don't think your source works as) is not going to show me that there were no other, more dominant points of discrimination at work.

I'm using the article to build my case. It is a source that supports my thesis that the U.S. has used religion as a basis for discrimination. I guess you would attack this aspect of my argument, seeing as how I pretty much proved that the U.S. discriminated against non-Christians with the Johnson v. McIntosh decision. While I couldn't find the quote of that famous American supporting the validation that non-Christian = not civilized, so non-Christian = okay to discriminate against, I have a lot of evidence proving that such sentient was a major factor of discrimination by the U.S.

[Muravyets]

Us evil godless liberals.

When you tell us that we need to get God out of our opinions, kinda.

Who's been telling you that?

[Muravyets]

I don't think that says what you think it says. The way I read it, it seems pretty clear that religion was not the dominating question driving discrimination. Also, fyi, an article that is specifically about religious discrimination (which I actually don't think your source works as) is not going to show me that there were no other, more dominant points of discrimination at work.

I'm using the article to build my case. It is a source that supports my thesis that the U.S. has used religion as a basis for discrimination. I guess you would attack this aspect of my argument, seeing as how I pretty much proved that the U.S. discriminated against non-Christians with the Johnson v. McIntosh decision. While I couldn't find the quote of that famous American supporting the validation that non-Christian = not civilized, so non-Christian = okay to discriminate against, I have a lot of evidence proving that such sentient was a major factor of discrimination by the U.S.

Except that it doesn't support your thesis IF you are just cherrypicking out the parts you like. In its entire context, the article is likely to focus on religion because religioustolerance.org is a site that tracks religious issues/topics. By the way, I consider religioustolerance.org to be an exceptionally good source for information about various religions, but it is not and makes no claims to be a source of statistical information about religion in general nor about history in general, let alone US history. In fact, if you read its mission statement, you will see the organizers state very clearly what their purpose and their slant is and what kinds of information they are going to post. It is not a site that is going to be useful as a MAIN support source for your thesis about US history.

Since your argument is about certain major events/periods of US history, you should be looking to sources about those events/periods in US history to find analysis of the causes and motivating factors to see if religious bigotry really played as big a role as you are claiming it did.

[The Cat-Tribe]

I don't think that says what you think it says. The way I read it, it seems pretty clear that religion was not the dominating question driving discrimination. Also, fyi, an article that is specifically about religious discrimination (which I actually don't think your source works as) is not going to show me that there were no other, more dominant points of discrimination at work.

I'm using the article to build my case. It is a source that supports my thesis that the U.S. has used religion as a basis for discrimination. I guess you would attack this aspect of my argument, seeing as how I pretty much proved that the U.S. discriminated against non-Christians with the Johnson v. McIntosh decision. While I couldn't find the quote of that famous American supporting the validation that non-Christian = not civilized, so non-Christian = okay to discriminate against, I have a lot of evidence proving that such sentient was a major factor of discrimination by the U.S.

Wow. You proved that bigots have sometimes used Christianity as a justification and that Christianity has sometimes motivated discrimination in the U.S.

I'm shocked, shocked to learn this.

This, of course, makes the U.S. different from every other country because no nation has ever used religion to excuse or motivate unsavory actions. Similarly, Christianity is the only religion ever associated with discrimination.

Oh, wait .... snap!

[The Cat-Tribe]

Us evil godless liberals.

When you tell us that we need to get God out of our opinions, kinda.

Who's been telling you that?

Have you been listening to the voices in my head?

[Muravyets]

U.S. Discrimination against non-Christians, based on religion (Part 2)

*Sorry for the delay, 4th of July Party*

<snip to save space>

I'm sorry, because you are going to a lot of trouble to build this argument, but again, your source is not saying what you want it to say. You are cherrypicking details out of their context and trying to transplant them into your context. You are taking narrow points and trying to stretch them to cover your broad argument. Nobody has denied that religious bigotry has existed in the US. But you are claiming that religious bigotry OUTWEIGHS racial and xenophobic bigotry in the US in general, and you are claiming war, oppression and discrimination against, for example, Native North Americans is proof of this because some aspects of that history involve religion. But you are failing -- indeed, not even trying -- to show that religion was the MAIN or LEADING motivating factor for the hostility towards Native Americans, as opposed to racism or imperialism. EDIT: And that, by the way, is the core of your entire argument. /edit

White Americans claimed to want to "Christianize" Native Americans. File that under "N" for "No shit, Sherlock." NOW show me how that motive was the reason WHY Native Americans were repeatedly attacked and abused by white settlers and the US government. You can start by showing me how much better Christian Native Americans fared than non-Christian Native Americans. And when you've presented that data, please then move on to showing the religious agenda at work in the Indian Wars.

[Muravyets]

When you tell us that we need to get God out of our opinions, kinda.

Who's been telling you that?

Have you been listening to the voices in my head?

Honey, if they're still in your head, then they haven't been telling Lizardier anything either.

[Kormanthor]

Yes I believe it was.

[Grave_n_idle]

Yes I believe it was.

Do you make a habit of believing things that the evidence clearly shows to be wrong?

[Kormanthor]

Yes I believe it was.

Do you make a habit of believing things that the evidence clearly shows to be wrong?

The question asked my opinion, I have stated it.