Brian63

With all the controversy around the pledge (although it has died down somewhat lately), much discussion has centered around answering the question:

"Was America founded as a Christian or secular nation?"

This would make a great topic for a formal debate, I believe. I am certainly not familiar with the topic enough to participate myself, but several others on this board are. Christians espousing the "Christian nation" view that are informed are pretty rare around here, but I believe "fromtheright" would qualify. He seems to be very knowledgeable about the issue, and is very polite as well.

If no regular members here were interested in participating, perhaps we could invite some higher-profile participants. Michael Newdow was on Sean Hannity's radio show debating the topic, and he was very knowledgeable about it. We would then need a suitable opponent from the religious right standpoint. Someone from the ACLJ perhaps (if they were not disgusted at the thought of visiting here, that is)?

Yes, no?

Brian

hezekiah jones

It might be interesting but I can envision a debate involving the plain text of the Constitution versus a lot of pointless jabbering about George Washington saying a prayer once or twice.

Philosoft

I see this as likely as well. There are no arguments in favor of "Christian nation" that are entirely or mostly textual in nature. And the "intent of the founders" argument is a dead-end because the best either side can do is provide anecdotes of what some of the founders might have thought; Washington and Franklin vs. Jefferson and Madison, if you will.

Brian63

Ba-da bump.

I am in the process of finding and inviting some scholarly debators, and could use some help.

So far, I have (or soon will) send invitations to a few organizations from both sides of the debate (alas I have not received any replies yet ). This is my list thus far:

Secular nation:
ACLU
FFRF
Americans United

Christian nation:
ACLJ

Are there any other organizations or individuals that you believe may be interested? I particularly need someone from the "Christian nation" side.

Brian

Jayhawker Soule

Do you see a distinction between intending a "secular nation" and intending a nation governed by a secular political system?

Brian63

Sure, but that terminology ("secular nation" vs. "Christian nation") is the norm (or so it seems to me) by the various sides in the debate, hence my continued usage of those particular phrases.

Changing the title to "Was America founded as a nation governed by a Christian political system or a secular political system?" just doesn't sound as neat.

I do understand your distinction though.

Brian

[ September 28, 2002: Message edited by: Brian63 ]</p>

Buffman

Brian63

An interesting undertaking, though I am somewhat confused by what such a debate would reveal or conclude that has not already been revealed and concluded many times before.

Personally I have no difficulty accepting the reality that primarily Protestant Christians, and a few Enlightment Deists, declared independence from the British Crown and then created a secular constitution (Federal Republic) form of government for the USA.

It is with the claim that the DoI and Constitution were formulated from the teachings of the Holy Bible with which I take strong objection. I suspect that that is what the Christian Nation claiments would have to prove to make their case.

Brian63

Buffman,

You are forcing me to finally 'fess up.

I have not yet read a single book on church/state issues (although I plan on remedying that in the somewhat near future), and my knowledge of the subject is limited to what I hear mostly in the popular media.

Based on just that, it seems to me that there is much disagreement about what the Founding Fathers themselves believed and how "Christianized" they intended the newly-formed government to be. The arguments I hear put forth are made mostly by popular preachers, activists, etc. and not by legal scholars and historians. If there is a general consensus on certain issues among the latter, then this proposed debate on those issues would probably not be very interesting, especially if we brought in scholars to debate them.

My impression, again though, is that at least among popular speakers on the subject (and not scholars/historians), the issue is unresolved and controversial, and hence a fruitful debate can be had.

Having a debate on how Christian the Founding Fathers were or how much separation they intended between church and state may be too broad a subject, and a narrower issue to debate could be more productive, I suppose. The debate could be over the legality of the words "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, for instance.

However, I am personally interested in seeing a debate whose content is heavier into the beliefs and intentions of our Founding Fathers than in a debate over the legality of a two-word phrase.

Brian

P.S. I did send some invitations out already with the debate topic that is stated in the OP, but I also mentioned that it is tentative and open to change.

Is anyone else interested in seeing a formal debate, and have any particular ideas on debate topics? Buffman mentioned one already (DoI and Constitution were based on the Bible). That may be a good one.

fromtheright

Brian 63,

Thank you for your vote of confidence. I certainly don't take myself for an expert on the issue, though I am quite interested. Narrowing the debate, as this discussion has shown, would be important though the issue of how much separation they intended is intriguing and I think the heart of the debate. Though I consider myself on the right side of the issue I do take issue with much that passes for Christian arguments, such as those pointed to by Buffman (i.e., "DoI and Constitution were formulated from the teachings of the Holy Bible"). These are idiotic viewpoints for which I've seen, and can imagine, no basis. Unfortunately, I believe it is such caricatures (though there really are people who believe those things) that many secularists have in mind of Christian debaters on the subject.
A couple of other organizations that I believe could also provide experts would be the Rutherford Institute and the Christian Legal Society.

Buffman

Brian63

My impression, again though, is that at least among popular speakers on the subject (and not scholars/historians), the issue is unresolved and controversial, and hence a fruitful debate can be had.

I wholeheartedly agree with your impression. There is an enormous amount of propaganda/ historical error, produced by both sides, floating around out there about the philosophical beliefs of the founding/framing fathers concerning the relationships between religion and government. IMHO, much of the current confusion, and consequent overreaction, can be traced to two primary sources...televangelism and David Barton. (A Google search will provide ample information about Barton.)

fromtheright

...though the issue of how much separation they intended is intriguing and I think the heart of the debate.

And I wholeheartedly agree with that insight. Unfortunately, to get to any meaningful discussion/debate on this requires a rather broad background investigation into (knowledge regarding) many other historical factors beyond simple religious beliefs/affiliations.

My efforts to unravel all the propaganda have led me to some of the following positions concering the founding/framing fathers:

1. They were some of the most educated and enlightened men in the colonies.

2. They were gifted writers, orators and politicians.

3. As a general proposition, they viewed religious faith belief as a means of instilling positive values and order within the masses of the uneducated.

4. It was never their intent to separate the government from the positive aspects of religious faith beliefs. However, it was the desire of the most influencial founders to separate the government from the negative aspects of "organized" religious faith beliefs...the most negative being the institutionalized intolerance for other faith, or no faith, beliefs. (i.e.: To find some way of protecting a minority belief or non-belief from a majority belief.) In their unique wisdom, they eliminated any religious test from the requirements to hold public, Federal, office as a representative of the people. However, in order to help guarantee that one religious Sect/Denomination would not receive favored treatment/support by this fledgling government, the 1st Amendement was crafted in a manner that forced the government to remain neutral in all matters pertaining to "organized" religion...but not in all matters of public ethics/morality/law.

IMHO, it is in the arena of morality that certain fundamentalist Christian denominations have been hard at work to undermine our government's constitutional mandate to remain neutral. To help them accomplish this, they have been able to successfully promote the belief that "Secular Humanism" is a religion and is the religion being supported by the U.S.Government to the detriment of "their" inerrant Christian moral dogma and their constitutional protections. (Enter the national political parties and their vested interest financial/power machinations.)

There are ample written artifacts from the minds and hands of our founders from which to make very strong determinations of their personal beliefs and intent. Unfortunately, there are also many written artifacts available from the minds and hands of biased biographers/historians which are the only records of certain inferences of the founders' intents. It is from these latter sources that much of the confusion and subsequent propaganda arises. (i.e.: Many of the biographers/historians were so enamored of George Washington that they helped to create an image of him of near "Sainthood" in the American psyche. It takes considerable research, patience and objectivity before one can begin to truly see and know the George Washington of those colonial times. This is especially true concerning many of the most famous founding/ framing fathers... especially those elected to the Presidency.)

It is because it has taken me so much time and research to even begin to uncover the falsifiable evidence concerning these individuals that I have to wonder just how well versed any of these so-called experts really are...or if they have their own agendas clouding their objectivity. I am hard pressed to believe that the scholars of the Rutherford Institute or Christian Legal Society would be without rather pronounced bias. Of course finding any human without conditioned biases of some sort is a challenge in itself...especially where religious beliefs are being discussed. Therefore I would be more inclined to listen to those that could debate the issues from an exclusively academic perspective rather than a religious one...if any such types exist.