fromtheright

Buffman,
Have you read Philip Hamburger's recent The Separation of Church and State which argues against what I consider the "conventional" wisdom of strict separation, reportedly arguing from Founders' intent. You're much more objective, fair-minded, and informed than many in IIDB and I am curious as to your impression if you have read it.

[ September 29, 2002: Message edited by: fromtheright ]</p>

Alonzo Fyfe

Honestly, I have never found much merit in such debates.

The debate, I think, requires an assumption that the founding fathers were more consistent in their words and deeds then they were in fact. This "false premise" makes any debate that pretends to yield a sound conclusion suspect.

Let me illustrate this by analogy. Similar to the question of whether this nation was founded as a Christian nation is the question of whether this country was founded as a free nation.

Certain texts and actions say yes -- quotes from the Declaration of Independence and a great many speeches support the thesis that the founding fathers valued freedom.

And, yet, the slave market thrived. Most of the founding fathers owned slaves, and those who did not were certainly willing to compromise with those that did.

So, was this country founded on the principle of freedom, or of slavery?

In truth, the answer is "a little bit of both." To begin a debate with the assumption that is was one or the other is to start with a false premise. Which subtracts, somewhat, from the merit of the debate.

But it is also significant that, with respect to slavery, Americans came to reject the argument that "the founding fathers valued X, therefore X is good" where X = slavery.

It is an argument we should reject as well.

Because it does not matter much whether the founding fathers believed X is good or bad, but whether X is good or bad in fact. Whether X = slavery, or X = separation of church and state.

Buffman

fromtheright

No! I have not had the opportunity to read his book..or be willing to spend that much to purchase it. However, I have managed to read a summary of his position on the issue. I do not take great exception to his general conclusion. What does disturb me is how some folks use it to support goals/ends with which I do not agree. Conversely I am disturbed by those who take some sort of personal offense that he does not agree with their interpretations of historical context.

Has the 1st Amendment undergone evolutionary interpretation changes? Most certainly. That is why the Supremes have had to resort to so many external documents upon which to base "their" interpretations. In many ways, that is one of the beauties of the Constitution. It is a living document. Those who claim that there should be no interpretation, only a strict reading of each word, are no friends of mine...or America.

America is not now, nor has it ever been, a static society. IMHO that is one of its greatest strengths...although there are those that are frightened by any change. I can appreciate their concerns without agreeing with their beliefs.

If you read Alonzo Fyfe's post above, and the one he made in the "How many atheists in America" topic string, I suspect that you will better understand how I view Prof. Hamburger's analysis. The issue isn't so much whose interpretation of the various factors is the most accurate as it is whether or not government neutrality in the expressions of individual religious conscience is in the best interests of a pluralistic and democratic society, and in accordance with what "We the people" stated in the Preamble of our Constitution. I am convinced that that Preamble, and neutrality, extend to those of no-religous faith/affilitiation just as much as they do to those with one. Unfortunately, our government has always been supportive of the Protestant Christian religious faith belief more than any other expression of individual conscience...and in so doing, violated the sworn oaths of office. That all began with the appointment of a Congressional Chaplain after the ratification of the new Constitution.

Many of the elected politicians were fearful that the public would perceive them as being immoral because no mention of God had been made in the Constitution. (Isn't that exactly what we see on the part of elected politicians concerning the current "under God" issue...especially in the wake of the Clinton years?)

American may overtly appear to be established on secular principles; however, covertly, it has always had a Protestant controlled, and religiously supportive, government...even under JFK.)

Isn't this all similar to the slavery issue? Just because it was accepted and practiced doesn't mean that it was ethically or morally correct. Well, just because there had always been a relationship with a Christian Congressional Chaplain doesn't mean that it was morally or ethically correct to continue this religious relationship forever after...or to introduce a monotheistic, supernatural, religious icon into the legal affairs of "The People's" federal republic government.

Brian63

I've been scavenging through the library here, and found a debate that resembles largely what I had in mind for this thing (based on just a quick skim of the content):

<a href="http://www.mars-hill-forum.com/forumdoc/m065cont.html" target="_blank">Is the United States a Christian Nation? Should It Be?</a>

Would a very similar debate to this not be interesting?

Brian

4th Generation Atheist

What's meant by "Christian Nation" in this context?

I frankly don't care whether the FFs were Xn, Deist, Hindu, Satanist, Wiccan, Muslim, atheist or what-have-you. I wouldn't care if they were all Pentecostal; I wouldn't care if I was the only atheist in the history of the country.

What I do care about is what my rights would be. As long as it isn't "ok" to harass me or discriminate against me b/c I'm an atheist; as long as it doesn't make it "ok" to bombard me at inconvenient times with "reasons" why I must convert, as long as I don't have to take a God-oath to hold an office, as long as I can speak my mind in the same way and in the same fora as a theist, as long as my atheism isn't held against me in criminal or civil judgment, or in evaluating my testimony in a court case (even in a de facto manner, such as by insisting I must swear on a Bible), and so on, and so on.

In short, what I care about is my right to my own opinion. Plus my right to hold that opinion and maintain the same standing as any other member of society, so long as I am law-abiding. If the FFs would not personally agree with the opinions I hold, and I'm fairly sure they wouldn't (me being a modern person facing issues they didn't), I don't especially care. But they set up a society in which people could eventually hold, even in the majority, opinions they didn't. If "Christian Nation" implies one in which Xns have more "rights" (or privileges) than others simply by the fact of being Xn, then I fall definitely on the anti-"Christian Nation" side (and I think this is usually what is meant by this phrase). But if what is meant is simply that the FFs had the assumption---or the personal hope---that it would largely be Xns who settled here, they were entitled to hope what they liked. And if what is meant is just that the majority of the FFs happened to espouse a particular religion, b/c the majority hailed from a particular part of the world, that's just an artifact of history and not something that we should necessarily "treasure" now. They didn't put it into the Constitution; that's the significant part.

(Tho admittedly being the only atheist in American history would be one hell of a talk-show circuit! )

[ September 30, 2002: Message edited by: 4th Generation Atheist ]</p>

Buffman

Brian63

Would a very similar debate to this not be interesting?

I took the time to read that entire debate/discussion. Based on that fact, "my answer" is NO.

I found nothing there that I have not found in these forums/publications. As a matter of personal opinion, I have found many of the debates/discussions/publications here to be far more stimulating and informative. However, I must admit that I was immediately suspicious of John Rankin because of his accompanying biography. I suspected that it had been created for maximum propaganda purposes designed to influence the audience before he ever began to speak...against Dr. Ed Buckner, the Executive Director of the Council for Secular Humanism.

Rev. John C. Rankin was raised as a secular humanist, an agnostic Unitarian prior to his conversion to a biblical faith in 1967.

Not satisfied that I had the entire picture, I began to do some research and located the following:

Raised an agnostic Unitarian, John converted to a biblical and evangelical faith, through divine revelation when he was 14-years old in 1967.

Does that not present Rev. Rankin in a rather different wardrobe? Then I started to read his 20 minute presentation. The first thing that disturbed me was the following statement:

The language that we're talking about in Jefferson's language, and Jefferson wrote the language, but he was composing it for a committee of about ten or twelve fellow signers, all of whom were orthodox in their Protestant confession.

Instantly he lost my interest in, or respect for, anything else he was going to say. I realize that that is a personal problem of my own; but there it is! I find it inexcusable that a discussion on such an important, advertised, and well attended debate/discussion would commence with one of the participants unaware of the accurate facts concerning one of the major issues of the debate...the significance of the Declaration of Independence as the cornerstone of our Constitution and if Christianity was the basis of the origins and justifications of our liberties.

<a href="http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/declara3.html" target="_blank">http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/declara/declara3.html</a>

Rev. Rankin claims to have been debating this kind of issue everywhere he can. Well, I sure as hell wouldn't wish to hear anything he has to say if this is an example of the level of his scholarship. I copied & pasted 19 additional statements with which I took certain exceptions. However, no matter how one views these debates/discussions, they are all doomed to go nowhere fast if one of the participants is allowed to use the Holy Bible to establish the authority of their argument/position. Until someone is able to provide the verifiable evidence to support the contention that the Holy Bible is "divinely" inspired, I will not concede that it proves anything other than the genius of the human mind.

Now, after having purged my system of the sectarian propaganda I just read, let me encourage you to press forward with your desire to have a debate/discussion on whatever "you" believe would be of interest to those reading these forums.

Dr Rick

If two worthy opponents come forward and want to debate the topic, I'll okay it.

Rick, Poohbah of the Formal Debates and Discussions Forum

MortalWombat

Whatever the founding fathers' religious backgrounds and beliefs were, it is obvious that they felt the need to completely leave out any mention of Jesus, God, or Christianity from the very document which is the basis of the government: the Constitution.