Was the US founded on christian beliefs?

[Galloism]

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.

Actually, the question was:

"Was the US founded on christian beliefs?"

That's not a question of feeling. It's a question of fact.

[Kormanthor]

The question asked my opinion, I have stated it.

Actually, the question was:

"Was the US founded on christian beliefs?"

That's not a question of feeling. It's a question of fact.

If the US was not founded on Christian Beliefs, why does our money say, " In God we Trust "

[The Cat-Tribe]

The question asked my opinion, I have stated it.

Actually, the question was:

"Was the US founded on christian beliefs?"

That's not a question of feeling. It's a question of fact.

If the US was not founded on Christian Beliefs, why does our money say, " In God we Trust "

'Cuz some assholes in the 1950s thought it would protect us from the godless communists.

FAIL.

[Trippoli]

Owned Sry.

[Galloism]

'Cuz some assholes in the 1950s thought it would protect us from the godless communists.

FAIL.

Ninja-cat beats me to the punch again.

[Kormanthor]

Well guys that doesn't change my opinion. You have a right to your opinion too, we just don't agree thats all.

[Trippoli]

Well guys that doesn't change my opinion. You have a right to your opinion too, we just don't agree thats all.

[JuNii]

Well guys that doesn't change my opinion. You have a right to your opinion too, we just don't agree thats all.

as long as he's not saying the US was FOUNDED TO BE A CHRISTIAN NATION. it's ok.

[No Names Left Damn It]

Well guys that doesn't change my opinion. You have a right to your opinion too, we just don't agree thats all.

You can't have an opinion that's contrary to fact. It's like saying "Nonono in my opinion England is populated entirely by shaved camels."

[Antilon]

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!

See bolded words. I neither claimed that "the U.S. [is] different from every other country because no nation has ever used religion to excuse or motivate unsavory actions" nor that "Christianity is the only religion ever associated with discrimination." Please, learn to read what is written (or rather typed) instead of trying to interpret the facts I present.

[Thukidides]

Well guys that doesn't change my opinion. You have a right to your opinion too, we just don't agree thats all.

Just to get a grasp of the situation here, what do you suppose WOULD change your opinion?

[Antilon]

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

*sigh* Really, now.

2) JOHNSON v. McINTOSH (8 Wheat., 543)

ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all; and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency. The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independence. But, as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements, and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle, which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was, that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.

The exclusion of all other Europeans, necessarily gave to the nation making the discovery the sole right of acquiring the soil from the natives, and establishing settlements upon it. It was a right with which no Europeans could interfere. It was a right which all asserted for themselves, and to the assertion of which, by others, all assented.

Those relations which were to exist between the discoverer and the natives, were to be regulated by themselves. The rights thus acquired being exclusive, no other power could interpose between them.

In the establishment of these relations, the rights of the original inhabitants were, in no instance, entirely disregarded; but were necessarily, to a considerable extent, impaired. They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion; but their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, was denied by the original fundamental principle, that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.

While the different nations of Europe respected the right of the natives, as occupants, they asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves; and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to grant the soil, while yet in possession of the natives. These grants have been understood by all, to convey a title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy.

The history of America, from its discovery to the present day, proves, we think, the universal recognition of these principles.

Incidentally, the JOHNSON v. McINTOSH case resulted in the Christian Discovery Doctrine, which supported decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments.

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.

A Supreme Court ruling and an interview with a U.S. President both stated/related (in the bold print) Christianity as THE factor in their decisions regarding relations with non-Christians. Please tell me how I haven't "to [shown] that religion was the MAIN or LEADING motivating factor for the hostility towards Native Americans, as opposed to racism or imperialism."

[Antilon]

2) JOHNSON v. McINTOSH (8 Wheat., 543)

ample field to the ambition and enterprise of all; and the character and religion of its inhabitants afforded an apology for considering them as a people over whom the superior genius of Europe might claim an ascendency. The potentates of the old world found no difficulty in convincing themselves that they made ample compensation to the inhabitants of the new, by bestowing on them civilization and Christianity, in exchange for unlimited independence. But, as they were all in pursuit of nearly the same object, it was necessary, in order to avoid conflicting settlements, and consequent war with each other, to establish a principle, which all should acknowledge as the law by which the right of acquisition, which they all asserted, should be regulated as between themselves. This principle was, that discovery gave title to the government by whose subjects, or by whose authority, it was made, against all other European governments, which title might be consummated by possession.

The exclusion of all other Europeans, necessarily gave to the nation making the discovery the sole right of acquiring the soil from the natives, and establishing settlements upon it. It was a right with which no Europeans could interfere. It was a right which all asserted for themselves, and to the assertion of which, by others, all assented.

Those relations which were to exist between the discoverer and the natives, were to be regulated by themselves. The rights thus acquired being exclusive, no other power could interpose between them.

In the establishment of these relations, the rights of the original inhabitants were, in no instance, entirely disregarded; but were necessarily, to a considerable extent, impaired. They were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion; but their rights to complete sovereignty, as independent nations, were necessarily diminished, and their power to dispose of the soil at their own will, to whomsoever they pleased, was denied by the original fundamental principle, that discovery gave exclusive title to those who made it.

While the different nations of Europe respected the right of the natives, as occupants, they asserted the ultimate dominion to be in themselves; and claimed and exercised, as a consequence of this ultimate dominion, a power to grant the soil, while yet in possession of the natives. These grants have been understood by all, to convey a title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy.

The history of America, from its discovery to the present day, proves, we think, the universal recognition of these principles.

Incidentally, the JOHNSON v. McINTOSH case resulted in the Christian Discovery Doctrine, which supported decisions invalidating or ignoring aboriginal possession of land in favor of colonial or post-colonial governments.

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.

Non-Christians were discriminated against because they simply were not Christian, as the above Johnson v. McIntosh ruling and Pres. McKinley's interview both clearly state. I think it's pretty clear in this case that the motivation is also the reason; they discriminated simply because they could.

All the while, I have NEVER said that race WAS NOT was not a major factor in discrimination. With that said, yes, non-Christian Native Americans were not treated much differently than Native Americans who converted to Christianity (unless you count that Christian Native Americans had a better chance of living, and even I think that is suspect). However, it's hard to discount my sources that clearly state religion as a major factor.

[West Failure]

You can't have an opinion that's contrary to fact. It's like saying "Nonono in my opinion England is populated entirely by shaved camels."

Well you can have an opinion that is contrary to fact, though people who do hold such opinions are what would normally be described as delusional or fools.

[Dyakovo]

The question asked my opinion, I have stated it.

Actually, the question was:

"Was the US founded on christian beliefs?"

That's not a question of feeling. It's a question of fact.

If the US was not founded on Christian Beliefs, why does our money say, " In God we Trust "

Because it was decided in the '50's that we needed to distinguish ourselves from the "Godless Commies"

[The Tofu Islands]

If the US was not founded on Christian Beliefs, why does our money say, " In God we Trust "

If the US was founded on Christian beliefs, why did (at least one of) the founding fathers say otherwise?

[Dyakovo]

Well guys that doesn't change my opinion. You have a right to your opinion too, we just don't agree thats all.

Except it isn't a matter of opinion, so your opinion is 1) meaningless & 2) wrong.

[Grave_n_idle]

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.

That's fine.

I'm just saying - since the evidence is overwhelming that your opinion doesn't reflect reality - is that a common trait, would you say?

[Grave_n_idle]

The question asked my opinion, I have stated it.

Actually, the question was:

"Was the US founded on christian beliefs?"

That's not a question of feeling. It's a question of fact.

If the US was not founded on Christian Beliefs, why does our money say, " In God we Trust "

I see this has already been answered several times, but I have to ask...

What does our money have to do with how we were founded?

[The Cat-Tribe]

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!

See bolded words. I neither claimed that "the U.S. [is] different from every other country because no nation has ever used religion to excuse or motivate unsavory actions" nor that "Christianity is the only religion ever associated with discrimination." Please, learn to read what is written (or rather typed) instead of trying to interpret the facts I present.

As I noted, you have proved little more than that bigots have sometimes used Christianity as a justification and that Christianity has sometimes motivated discrimination in the U.S. *yawn*

How is that relevant to the discussion? What interpretation are we to draw from these obvious fact? That the U.S. is a Christian nation? No, Antilon, that is bullshit.

[Muravyets]

*sigh* Really, now.

Yes, really, now.

You keep handing me these same carefully picked cherries that do nothing but point to the existence of some instances of religiously bigoted propaganda and public political statements, and you keep claiming that they prove your original assertion that, through the entirety of US history and through all of US culture, religious bigotry has been a stronger influence in national attitudes across the board than racism and/or xenophobia.

They. Do. Not. Do. That.

Wrap your brain around it. I have told you multiple times exactly why your "evidence" does not work, and what kind of evidence would work for you. Rather than go and look for it, you just keep trying to force me to accept your handful of cherries. Is that because you know you won't find real evidence in support of your argument?

I get that you are very fond of this notion of yours. But I am sorry, it just does not match up with documented facts of history.

EDIT: Oh, and by the way, while you never claimed that racism played no role, you most certainly did state outright that religious bigotry was as strong as or stronger than racism. And I have never said otherwise about your argument. So please don't even waste time trying either (a) to claim that I made any argument that I did not really make, or (b) to move your goalposts by pretending that your point was anything other than what it has been from the start.

[Muravyets]

As I noted, you have proved little more than that bigots have sometimes used Christianity as a justification and that Christianity has sometimes motivated discrimination in the U.S. *yawn*

How is that relevant to the discussion? What interpretation are we to draw from these obvious fact? That the U.S. is a Christian nation? No, Antilon, that is bullshit.

And thank you to TCT for bringing this back to the main topic. Not only has Antilon not supported the core of his argument, he has not even related his argument to the OP question. I'm wondering if he has gotten sidetracked from that by trying to defend his argument, or if he was just exploiting this thread for a chance to trot out one of his favorite personal theories.