July 21, 2009

Antithetical Compromise?

We only have to look as far as our Constitution to know how our Founding Fathers viewed declaring one certain religion, Christianity, within our government; this possibly may have been for purely practical reasons, since it would be hard to do business with Muslims otherwise.

Case in point. The pandering called the Treaty of Tripoli, with Muslims. They, Barbary Powers, were warring against what they claimed to be the "Christian" nations (England, France, Spain, Denmark, and the United States).(1)

Lets get into the minds of the Founding Fathers trying to get a nation up and running. They were familiar with the Qur'an, I am sure. They all understood the terms jihad (a holy war, a religious duty, waged by Muslims against infidels i.e. Christians) from the Qur'an. They knew their customer's beliefs.

Surah 5:51 "O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: they are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them for friendship is of them."

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims.(2)

Reading a book called "Original Intent: Courts, the Constitution, & Religion" by David Barton will shed some light called truth on the situation. Although I haven't read it yet, he is an author who is familiar to us Home Schoolers. Barton knows his history.

Was the Treaty of Tripoli effective? Apparently not, evidenced since the treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli over President Thomas Jefferson's refusal to pay the Pasha's demands for increased payments. The First Barbary War, the Battle of Derne in 1805 was an attempt to free many of Christian slaves in Barbary. Unfortunately, Jefferson, a heretical deist, and his administration then caved to the evil ones and argued that buying sailors out of slavery was a fair exchange to end the war. They agreed to pay a ransom of sixty thousand dollars for the American prisoners.

So, was Jefferson wrong in trying to make a deal with the devil? In reflection. if he saw the hostility and persecutions towards Christians around the world these days and what happened on 9/11, would he have still made the Treaty of Tripoli? Probably so, as a non-Christian (without the guiding logic of the Holy Spirit).

Incidentally, we owe the strength of our, then fledgling, U.S. Navy to Pasha of Tripoli. President Jefferson was in the process of disbanding the Navy when, in bad timing, Pasha of Tripoli declared war on the US. Glory goes to our Lord Jesus Christ.

So did the Treaty of Tripoli repudiate Christianity? Nope. In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared:

The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours.(3)

Furthermore, it was Adams who declared:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.

Adams' own words confirm that he rejected any notion that America was less than a Christian nation.(5)

Jefferson on the other hand....


(1) Glen Tucker, Dawn Like Thunder: The Barbary Wars and the Birth of the U. S. Navy (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1963), p. 127.
Gardner W. Allen, Our Navy and the Barbary Corsairs (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1905), pp. 56.
(3) John Adams, Works, Vol. VIII, p. 407, to Thomas Jefferson on July 3, 1786.
(4) John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.
(5) David Barton

UPDATE: Well I have been set straight and missed quite a bit about our history. A man named William R. Bowen wrote a brilliant article on this subject called Tempest in a Treaty: Does the Treaty of Tripoli Support a Secular America?

I missed a great point that:
Article XI refers to the “government” of the United States, not the “nation.” 
and the viewpoint of religion back then meant something entirely different as so eloquently pointed out by George Mason.

Thanks for setting the record strait Mr. Bowen.


  1. The mind boggles
    Of course you do the same thing as lawyers.All the repubs in the states yelled and screamed when Clinton said "would you define "is""
    You are trying to rewrite history. Unfortunately for you it's already been written.
    Quote mining to the slavish converted is a wonderful exercise in personal gratification but really. You haven't lied but isn't misleading when you know differently sort of pushing it?
    You kmow it is.

  2. Please put "it" between isn't and misleading.
    Does effect the impact I was trying to make but doesn't change the conviction!

  3. Dan:

         Is it christian to lie? If Washingtin, Adams, and the U.S. Senate considered this to be a christian nation then they were lying by saying it was not. Even if you claim they were being pragmatic, it puts the things of this world above their faith. I don't think you can salvage much of christianity while claiming the nation was based on it.

  4. Pvb,

    Is it lying because me and you disagree about it being a Christian Nation? I don't think it was lying just merely a difference of opinions.

    But I do fault the compromise of that failed treaty.

  5. You're wrong, Dan.

    Of the 39 signers of the U.S. Constitution, only seven were deceased when the Treaty of Tripoli was ratified by the U.S. Senate. The text was read aloud, including the offending article, and every Senator present voted for it.

    John Adams, who you unintentionally quote-mined as you no doubt copied that quotation from some Christian-friendly source (almost verbatim, plagiarist), said far more than that little bit provided. He was, of course, the President at the time, and signed it into law. Surely, if he took issue with the offending statement, he might have said something to that effect, no?

    What more did Adams say? Here's some of what precedes your plagiarized quote:

    Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty. 

    Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No. 

    Following this, Dan's plagiarism appears, and the ellipses are not especially misleading. For the whole text, visit this site.

    At any rate, we see that Adams counts as holders of "Christian principles" all manner of Americans, from various forms of Christians, to Deists, to atheists, to agnostics. These are the same people he describes as having found this country, so his use of "Christian" to describe the principles is akin to the use of "Christian" to describe one's surname. It doesn't describe the religion, per se.

    Of course, all of this is moot, as the text of Article 11 is clear, and none stood up to denounce it or alter it in any way.

    As for the other Adams quote, it is irrelevant, having come some ten years prior to the treaty's inception.

    The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.

    It's not. Deal with it.


  6. Well said Stan!

    I would like to add that the "Treaty of Tripoli", which was made very available to the general public and the Senate previous to being voted on, was only the third recorded unanimous vote by the US senate.

    Dan, though Stan already pointed out your failed quote mining, I just want to mention that the trivial mumblings of a politician have no bearing on a legal document. Once again all you have done is resorted to quote mining and an Appeal to Authority when the evidence doesn't fit your wishful thinking.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

  7. Dan:

         "Is it lying because me and you disagree about it being a Christian Nation? I don't think it was lying just merely a difference of opinions."
         Whether you and I disagree about it being a christian nation has no bearing on whether the representatives of that nation lied. My question "is it christian to lie?" is very important, because to support your claim, you require christians believing the nation to be christian lying and denying it.
         Re-read my previous response. None of it claims that you did not believe what you said. But the only way for you to be right is for it to be christian to lie. If you are right, a christian nation lied and said, quite plainly, that it was no such thing.
         I find it hard to believe that you did not understand my post. Your response doesn't fit. It is on that that I will accuse you of deception.

  8. Stan,

    I could be wrong but I feel I did not plagiarize anything and referenced every source. What more do you want? Look at the author for (5) David Barton. Not only did I link to his article about the subject, I encouraged everyone to get his book about that subject. Again, what more do you want?

    Moving on. I really do appreciate the link you provided. ("For the whole text, visit this site.")

    It was interesting to find out that he (Vine & Fig Tree guy) attended Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen's church and surprisingly has many of the same views that I hold. It will be interesting to read more about him and his beliefs. Thanks.

    But I am afraid that you didn't read the entire link that you linked to. He held the same belief that I am making here. The conclusion of his article says it all AND I QUOTE:

    "Adams didn't like Hume, Voltaire, or any other "atheist, deist, and libertine" (diary entry for 6/23/79). Adams is saying, he can show how the moral value of certain Christian principles is admitted even by atheists (as well as Christians like Newton and Locke). But all of those atheists were given Christian educations as children. They were never able to break from their heritage completely. If you deprive children of that heritage to begin with, they break from the Christian moral consensus quicker and deviate from it farther. The age of the average inmate in 1930 was about 40. Today it is closer to 20. Prior to Jonesboro, Ark., how often did 11-year olds pick up guns and fire on fellow students over a jilted romance? But the entire world of moral discourse in secularized schools is this kind of Duke Nukem violence and vengeance. I exaggerate, of course, but it is clear that the world of McGuffey Readers is not the modern world, and all the Founding Fathers would disapprove of this devolution. The Constitution they signed did not mandate this transition.

    This was a Christian nation."

    We were founded on Christian principles and for Athiests, like yourself, to say anything to the contrary is being dishonest. To themselves, more then anyone else.

    That link that you provided also had some "Anti-Separation of Church and State Resources" that also concluded AND I QUOTE:

    "Nowhere can it be demonstrated that the Founders desired to secularize official society and "create a complete separation of the spheres of religious activity and civil authority." The Abington decision represented a further step in the devolution of the First Amendment by rewriting the intent of those who created the Constitution and Bill of Rights."

    Anyway thanks for that resource again. I think I will add it to the fray so I can find it again.

  9. Chimp,

    I just want to mention that the trivial mumblings of a politician have no bearing on a legal document. 

    I completely disagree. Like in a contract we have to understand the intent not just the letters. Contracts have been voided by the misuse of the intent of said contract even though it was legally followed.

    The feelings, mindset, and intent of the Founding Fathers is very relevant to this subject. Did they feel this to be a Nation of Christian Principles or not? I say Yes most did.

  10. Pvb,

    I perfectly understand what you said and I am sorry for avoiding the original question. You're right.

    I just viewed that most of the Founding Fathers believed in Christ; set up our entire governmental system of liberty based on the Christian principles; and compromised themselves with a treaty with the devil. They didn't lie, per se, but they failed to push the Biblical Antithesis of God.

    Maybe we can relate to Peter denying Christ he certainly lied and said he didn't know Christ but it was for pure self preservation. And the pain and guilt he felt for doing so was called repentance (Matthew 26:75). Do Christians lie? Certainly. Did they intentionally lie to be deceitful and evil? No. Was it out of self preservation? Possibly so. Was it wrong to do so? A resounding YES.

  11. Dan said, "Like in a contract we have to understand the intent not just the letters."

    well, first of all you did not show the true intent of his words that have no direct connection to the document you are speaking of.

    Second of all, one persons opinion does not reflect that of all of those involved in the process when a treaty is passed through the senate.

    I think the text is very clear anyway. If you are assuming that it didn't really mean that we are not a Christian nation, then you only confirm PVB's point that the US government and all those people you claim are true Christians were lying.

    ~Atomic Chimp

  12. Dan said,"I just viewed that most of the Founding Fathers believed in Christ; set up our entire governmental system of liberty based on the Christian principles;...

    Most doesn't cut it Dan. You even mention that Jefferson was a deist in this post. I believe you have denied this before but I'm too lazy to dig through you comments to verify this.

    You go from most of them being Christians to our entire system being based on Christian values. So those who weren't just said, 'the hell with it I guess we have to be a Christian nation.'?

    I doubt that since several of our founding fathers often spoke about Christianity in a bad light. Some are some of those who spoke most strongly about the principles of this nation.

    Dan, please define for me what, "Christian principles" are and which ones you believe they base our nation on.

    ~Atomic Chimp

  13. But I am afraid that you didn't read the entire link that you linked to. He held the same belief that I am making here. 

    You just don't get it, do you? I linked to the source for the entire Adams quote, which is appropriate considering his quote is under discussion. I presented the quote in [virtually] its entirety, including a direct link to the actual entirety, so that my statements could be verified.

    What I did not do, which you constantly do, is to search for and link to a site which supported my position. Rather, I located a site which provided the entire quote in question, so that it could be discussed appropriately, rather than via the plagiarized quote-mine you performed (yes, it was plagiarism -- you didn't just quote Adams, but the author of the article itself, and you did so without attribution). I did not seek out, and obviously did not find, an article that explicitly agrees with my position -- though such an article could no doubt be located. I don't care what the guy's conclusions are, as I'm not basing my argument off of his. I'm pointing to the relevant text, and that is all.

    You should consider taking a course on how to properly conduct research, since you're clearly incapable of doing it honestly.

    We were founded on Christian principles and for Athiests [sic], like yourself, to say anything to the contrary is being dishonest. 

    No, no, and no. As the Treaty of Tripoli explicitly states, the government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion. What does a "plain reading of the text" tell you, Dan?

    As I showed, though, Adams' use of "Christian principles" is equivalent to the use of one's "Christian name" -- it's not a reference to Christianity per se, but an unfortunate slang reference to a set of principles viewed as not being "savage" or "heathen."

    What's more, is that the explicit statement in the Treaty details exactly what I'm saying -- that the Christian religion was not the basis of our government. If you insist that the principles were "Christian," fine. We'll disagree still, but it's largely moot, as only a small subset of the tenets of your religion are included in those principles anyway, and many of the principles -- especially the ones we today espouse -- are undeniably anti-Christian.

    If you continue to insist that the U.S. was founded on "Christian principles," then you are guilty of bending the term "Christian" to suit your needs out of convenience, and that is dishonest. The fact remains that the U.S. -- a unanimous Senate, with the blessing of the Executive branch -- explicitly stated that it was not founded on the Christian religion, and that even while Adams may have considered himself a Christian, he explicitly acknowledged the inclusion of various denominations of Christianity, as well as various non-Christian religions and/or philosophies, as being pivotal in the formation and defense of the fledgling democracy.


  14. Dan:

    You didn't answer on the other thread; what did Jesus say about taxes?

  15. Rufus,

    The squeaky wheel indeed gets some grease.

    What did Jesus say about taxes? Hmm, I know he paid his taxes (Matthew 17:24-27)

    Plus we all remember and understand what He said to the Pharisees that were trying to trick Him in Mark 12:13-17 and Luke 20:20-26.Paul also makes it clear in Romans 13:1-7.

    Why do you ask?

  16. Dan, I'm still waiting for you to define for me what these, "Christian principles" are, and which ones you believe they base our nation on.


    ~Atomic Chimp

  17. Hey Dan, Since you seem to like to cite qutoes by Adams, heres one I think you'll enjoy!

    "The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and the whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."

    Though it still has no bearing on whether or not we live in a Christina nation, I thought it would help you let go of trying to spin doctor the treaty of tripoli with unrelated quotes.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

  18. Chimp,

    Nice quote without a source.

    Admittedly, I thought Adams was a Christian at the time of the post and have since realized that possibly may not be the case. Although, only our Creator can know with certainty. I cannot view the fruit of these men so, through the historians presuppositions, we can merely speculate.

    I found another book that may be interesting. "The Founding Fathers and Deism" by David Barton.

    Someone did recommended a good book that sheds light on the situation.

    As far as the "Christian principles" question...Principles based on the Bible.

    Benjamin Rush, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, put it this way:

    By renouncing the Bible, philosophers swing from their moorings upon all moral subjects. . . . It is the only correct map of the human heart that ever has been published. . . . All systems of religion, morals, and government not founded upon it [the Bible] must perish, and how consoling the thought, it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself.

  19. ...it will not only survive the wreck of these systems but the world itself. "The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it." [Matthew 1:18]

    Benjamin Rush
    (Source: Benjamin Rush, Letters of Benjamin Rush, L. H. Butterfield, editor (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951), p. 936, to John Adams, January 23, 1807.)

  20. Article VI of the Constitution:

    "...all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

    Also, seven of the ten commandments cannot be made laws because they would be unconstitutional- dictating conscience.

    When only three of your ten major religious tenets made it as valid laws, it sure doesn't seem like we are founded on Christian prinipals.

  21. Since Dan is so fond of quoting influential American figures, here's some Jefferson, in a letter to Rush:

    And in confiding [my views on Christianity] to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies. 

    Here, Jefferson paused to glare menacingly at Dan...

    I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public, because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience which the laws have so justly proscribed. 

    This second portion is, quite simply, beautiful prose, and it fits in perfectly with Froggie's statement regarding the lone two "commandments" which are part of U.S. law -- the third, traditionally the ninth commandment, is only against the law when one is under oath.

    In another letter to Rush (which preceded the letter quoted above), Jefferson wrote the following:

    I have a view of the subject [of Christianity] which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Deists, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum who are all in arms against me. 

    [Note: the Latin phrase translates roughly as "the irritable species of poets," and is a reference to Horace.]

    [Ed. Note: the use of this phrase seems clearly aimed toward the non-rational Christians, and the clergy who are referenced later in the letter.]

    Here, again, then, Jefferson paused to glare menacingly at Dan...

    The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to [the clergy's] hopes [of establishing a particular form of Christianity throughout the U.S.], & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. 

    [Note: "god" was not capitalized in the handwritten letter.]

    [Ed. Note: the "tyranny over the mind of man" clearly references the imposition of religion of any kind.]

    So, Dan, you can pretty clearly see that the very authors of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were not friendly toward your sort of Christianity, and instead stood in stark opposition to recognizing any particular religion as being the basis of American principles. Indeed, in Jefferson's own words, he describes himself as a "Christian," but in this he means the original sense of the term -- a follower of Jesus "Christ." He liked very much what Jesus had to say, but he did not attribute to him any divinity whatsoever.

    If nothing else, then, these texts -- the letters, as well as the Treaty of Tripoli -- show that the "founding fathers" of the United States were nothing close to the fundamentalist Christians Dan would make them sound like. Even those who were Christians, or at least called themselves Christians, were at best the "rational Christians" Jefferson describes -- not the irrational blowhards Dan fairly worships.


  22. Dan you said, "..Principles based on the Bible."

    Thats rather vague. I've seen many groups and individuals claim that what they do is based on biblical principles, but I'm sure you would not agree with their interpretation.

    Since I'm sure you would not agree with some of the horrible things I see promoted in the bible, please give me exact examples. If there are too many for you to list, just provide the core and most important principles.

    As for not mentioning the source of the quote, since it does not directly pertain to the point being discussed, but instead to hopefully curb your addiction to quote mining, I thought it was not necessary. But for your satisfaction, here is one of the resource I used:

    Right To Recover
    by Yvonne Perry
    Nightengale Press
    October 2007
    ISBN-13: 9781933449418

    Word is bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

  23. Chimp,

    I guess the simplest way in defining Christian principles is a striving to live life virtuously.

  24. Nice, this Duane Blake said the same thing. Nice Job.

    Religion is indeed a cornerstone of liberty.

  25. Dan, your definition of Christan principles is again too vague. There are many other religions, groups, and people at that time that could be defined as virtuous. By you definition, we could claim that one of many other groups principles is what this nation is what this nation was based on. Buddhism for example, which predate Christianity.

    Please give me example that other religions, groups or individuals do not promote.

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

  26. Chimp,

    There are many other religions, groups, and people at that time that could be defined as virtuous. 

    You would be absolutely in denial to believe that any other religion dominated our Founding Fathers times, other then Christianity. I am sure you understand that they were not Muslim also. Come back to reality and reason with logic as to what religion was dominate in those days and what religion influenced most.

  27. Dan +†+ said...

    Nice, this Duane Blake said the same thing. Nice Job.

    Religion is indeed a cornerstone of liberty.

    Complete bull. Read about the xian-ruled middle ages. Or about how the religious John Calvin ruled Geneva. Or the myraid "freedoms" that slaves had under your "christian" founding fathers when the states were first formed.

    It was only when people started to stand up to those tyrants that the concept of liberty began to take root, and it was more to do with it being despite religion than because of it.

    Some examples, and not just christian and islam, either.

    After all, if this is a "christian nation" why did the founding fathers not bloody say that in any of their documents?

  28. After all, if this is a "christian nation" why did the founding fathers not bloody say that in any of their documents? 

    Because it isn't, and they actually said otherwise -- explicitly -- in this country's infancy, which is obviously the subject of this thread, and which Dan refuses to accept, despite a "plain reading of the text."



  29. Dan, You seem to only see my mentioning of religions and ignored that my comment clearly applied to non-religious sources. You seem to be stuck on the idea that anything you support must have been inspired by religion, Christianity in particular.

    You're missing my point Dan. Though we have legal documents from our early history, put in place by our founding fathers that in plain text point out we're not a Christian nation, you claim your proof is the principles this nation was based on. What you still haven't done is show that any principles that apply are exclusively Christian. There are other religions, and also many different cultures, groups, movements, philosophies etc share those principle you've vaguely claiming so far.

    Dan at that time our nation was founded, the different Christian sects would not be able to agree on a definition of what were the Christian principle. Our founding fathers were smart enough to remover the religion from the government secular principles.

    Since most of the colonist came to the new world in order to escape the religious tyranny of England, to claim they came here to form another Christian based theocracy is foolish. Dan, it is you who should "Come back to reality".

    Word is Bond!
    ~Atomic Chimp

  30. Dan, if you look at the what Christian virtues and principles were in the first century and what they are now, you'd see that they have been evolving to keep up with our culture. Your Christian apologists make a living trying to come up with excuses and do clever spin doctoring, in order to make it appear that you guys had it right all along.

    Dan, your Christian principles are not the same as they were over 200 years ago. Stop ignoring the facts.

    ~Atomic Chimp

  31. Article XI is worn out from overuse by those vested in America as an atheist nation. The reason is is that it is one of the very few pieces of evidence going for them.

    I have recently placed an article on hubpages that argues that the Treaty of Tripoli does not support the secular America thesis, with or without Article XI. You can see it at


    Thanks for the good information.

  32. Mr. Bowen,

    First, welcome.

    Second, I want to thank you so very much for your article called Tempest in a Treaty: Does the Treaty of Tripoli Support a Secular America?

    I sure wish I did more homework on George Mason's quotes on religion. Nice! I missed that entirely.

    And why didn't I see that Article XI refers to the “government” of the United States, not the “nation.” 

    I thought it was a compromise to their faith but I may have been way off. Those men, who were Christian, indeed put God first and formed a nation of Christian principles and formed a government that did not force our religion on folks. Hopefully, people will understand more that hearts are not changed by imposing Christianity but by the Grace of God. Our Founding Fathers knew this, the brilliant men they were. I cannot wait to shake George Mason's hand for his work.

    Well anyway, thanks again for setting the record strait.


  33. Those men, who were Christian, indeed put God first and formed a nation of Christian principles and formed a government that did not force our religion on folks. 

    Take your meds, Dan, and try honesty just once, will you?

    Some of the "founding fathers" were [professing] Christians, some were not. There may even have been a majority of professing Christians amongst them, but it is a dubious claim indeed to suggest that many of them would meet your standard of True Christian™.

    They did not put god first, but rather they put the principles of democracy first, and they put liberty first. Indeed, Article 11 of the treaty in question explicitly states that even if they did put god first, it wasn't the Christian god.

    Redefining "religion," altering the meaning of "Christian nation" as used by modern Christians, and pointing to the term "government," as though any of these things help you, is a lost cause. This supposed "Secular America Thesis" aside, the claim is not that America was founded on Atheism, or Secularism, but that is was intentionally and explicitly founded not as a "Christian nation," but as a diverse nation of people with varied backgrounds -- including varied philosophies and/or religions.

    Anyway, just what do you think the "founding fathers" founded, anyway?


    P.S. -- I like how this Bowen fellow unwittingly refers to the founding of the U.S. government as an "institution of coercion." Although he means to say that governments are used to coerce citizens, this stands in stark contrast to the very type of government the "founding fathers" envisioned and penned. Also, "institutions of coercion" would necessarily be based on coercion -- America, conversely, was inspired through the recognition of coercion.


Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>