Quote:

---

The basis for our country was always rooted in Christianity/Theism.

---

I think this will be an eternal debate, but I think our country - however that is defined as the nature of our country has shifted mightily over the years - had a great mix of inspirations ranging from enlightenment thinkers, ancient philosophers, and some Christian thinking.

They drew heavily on anti-monarchical thinking

Rosseau and Locke with their Social Contract thinking

Plato's Separation of Powers and Representative Democracy

I can see Christianity playing a part, but I don't think it was the basis.

The overwhelming majority of men at the Constitutional Convention were strong Christians. Many historians believe that one of the reasons for making Jefferson ambassador to France was to get him out of the country during the Convention.

Our country was most definitely not a formally "Christian" country, but Christianity was the dominant thread in the warp and woof of the fabric of our country's founding.

Many of the British colonies in North America were founded with particular religious views, even the official colony in Virginia was much more strongly interested in religion than we are today.
It was standard in many places for Sunday church attendance to be mandatory, as late as the 1950's many states in the U.S. closed businesses on Sunday. I think only schools still close on Sat/Sun.

Edit - forgot liquor stores and the like still closed by law.

Rongagin71 said:

---

Many of the British colonies in North America were founded with particular religious views, even the official colony in Virginia was much more strongly interested in religion than we are today.
It was standard in many places for Sunday church attendance to be mandatory, as late as the 1950's many states in the U.S. closed businesses on Sunday. I think only schools still close on Sat/Sun.

Edit - forgot liquor stores and the like still closed by law.

---

And in France, a country notably less Christian than the US, it is common for businesses to close on Sundays. It's more so due to their culture of leisure and work/life balance, whereas American culture is very much capitalistic. Closing on Sundays is now rare, unless you're the government, a bank, or Chick Fil A.

Point being, who cares if the founding fathers were strong Christians or not. Yes, we all know Christianity is the dominant religion in the USA. But it was very clearly not founded on Christianity and was explicitly directed to not have a state religion. I really wish we did not have to debate this anymore, but we do, because so many of our elected leaders are Christian Nationalists.

By the way, this is a stellar collection of all the original writings, speech transcripts, and interviews with the seminal figures that both influenced the creation of our government and led the revolution and eventual drafting of the constitution. Fun place to get lost for awhile in first hand accounts.

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/amendI_religion.html

Quote:

---

because so many of our elected leaders are Christian Nationalists.

---

How do you define a "Christian Nationalist"? Simply someone who is both a Christian and a nationalist, or something different or more than that?

The particulars of their modes of worship is much less relevant than the concept of how virtue acts as both a restraint and an enabler of liberty.

If you look at virtue, they divided into public (i.e., civic) virtue - the ability to subordinate one's self interest for the good of the whole - and private (i.e., personal) virtue - the ability seek the good as a person.

Public virtue is the same everywhere and always, and is the firm requirement for whoever is participating in government. Where the rulers lack public virtue the government will be ineffective and tend toward chaos and tyranny.

Where it gets more interesting in the writings of the founders (echoing classical political theorists and philosophers) is that they were adamant that a person could not have public virtue if they were incapable of private virtue. In other words, a person was not fit to rule others if he was not able to rule himself. Private virtue within the population is the only guarantor of liberty.

And when we examine what their definition was of the good and therefore of private virtue, the moral code they are using is unequivocally Christian. That's where the rubber meets the road. The US mode of governance was predicated on morality, and specifically Christian morality, informing a virtuous citizenry.

Zobel said:

---

The particulars of their modes of worship is much less relevant than the concept of how virtue acts as both a restraint and an enabler of liberty.

If you look at virtue, they divided into public (i.e., civic) virtue - the ability to subordinate one's self interest for the good of the whole - and private (i.e., personal) virtue - the ability seek the good as a person.

Public virtue is the same everywhere and always, and is the firm requirement for whoever is participating in government. Where the rulers lack public virtue the government will be ineffective and tend toward chaos and tyranny.

Where it gets more interesting in the writings of the founders (echoing classical political theorists and philosophers) is that they were adamant that a person could not have public virtue if they were incapable of private virtue. In other words, a person was not fit to rule others if he was not able to rule himself. Private virtue within the population is the only guarantor of liberty.

And when we examine what their definition was of the good and therefore of private virtue, the moral code they are using is unequivocally Christian. That's where the rubber meets the road. The US mode of governance was predicated on morality, and specifically Christian morality, informing a virtuous citizenry.

---

And they were awash in a sea of laws, practices, and customs derived solely or primarily from Christianity, and none objected to those laws on that basis.

They would have been horrified at the currently prevailing view of the relationship between Christianity and government.

And someone above mentioned Benjamin Franklin's biography. I read that not too long ago and it struck me that he may well have been a Christian in his core beliefs. He seemingly objected more to organized religion and the hypocrisy that he saw in it than he did to the tenets, doctrines, and truths of Christianity itself.

ETA: what I read was not Frankin's biography, but his autobiography. Nothing like getting his beliefs from his own pen rather than what someone else might think of his beliefs.

Jabin said:

---

Zobel said:

---

The particulars of their modes of worship is much less relevant than the concept of how virtue acts as both a restraint and an enabler of liberty.

If you look at virtue, they divided into public (i.e., civic) virtue - the ability to subordinate one's self interest for the good of the whole - and private (i.e., personal) virtue - the ability seek the good as a person.

Public virtue is the same everywhere and always, and is the firm requirement for whoever is participating in government. Where the rulers lack public virtue the government will be ineffective and tend toward chaos and tyranny.

Where it gets more interesting in the writings of the founders (echoing classical political theorists and philosophers) is that they were adamant that a person could not have public virtue if they were incapable of private virtue. In other words, a person was not fit to rule others if he was not able to rule himself. Private virtue within the population is the only guarantor of liberty.

And when we examine what their definition was of the good and therefore of private virtue, the moral code they are using is unequivocally Christian. That's where the rubber meets the road. The US mode of governance was predicated on morality, and specifically Christian morality, informing a virtuous citizenry.

---

And they were awash in a sea of laws, practices, and customs derived solely or primarily from Christianity, and none objected to those laws on that basis.

They would have been horrified at the currently prevailing view of the relationship between Christianity and government.

And someone above mentioned Benjamin Franklin's biography. I read that not too long ago and it struck me that he may well have been a Christian in his core beliefs. He seemingly objected more to organized religion and the hypocrisy that he saw in it than he did to the tenets, doctrines, and truths of Christianity itself.

ETA: what I read was not Frankin's biography, but his autobiography. Nothing like getting his beliefs from his own pen rather than what someone else might think of his beliefs.

---

I have read quite a bit about Franklin. I believe also he was a Christian at the core but hated hypocritical behavior by "devout" Christians. Plus he liked wine and women.

Not too different than Jesus who was basically called a drunk, glutton, and religious law breaker by the "devout" religious folks.

Don't forget Thomas Paine.

I think the word "Christian" is what trips the argument up, because most wealthy free thinking men of that time had a barely disguised disgust with the human structures that had perverted Christianity into the basis of armed conflict and draconian persecution of civil liberties. They understood that the belief systems of folks arriving from the old world were highly diverse.

The writings of most of the founding father displayed at best an uneasiness and at worst and outright condemnation of explicitly writing Christian terminology into the founding document. They went out of their way to say that we need to respect and include value systems from all religions, not just the predominant protestant Christianity of the late 1700s North American British Colonies. A few examples:

Thomas Paine

"With respect to what are called denominations of religion, if every one is left to judge of his own religion, there is no such thing as a religion that is wrong; but if they are to judge of each other's religion, there is no such thing as a religion that is right; and therefore all the world is right, or all the world is wrong."

Thomas Jefferson Autobiography

"an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination."

And to you point here:

Quote:

---

Where it gets more interesting in the writings of the founders (echoing classical political theorists and philosophers) is that they were adamant that a person could not have public virtue if they were incapable of private virtue. In other words, a person was not fit to rule others if he was not able to rule himself. Private virtue within the population is the only guarantor of liberty.

---

John Locke zeroed in very specifically on private virtue not being a product of a single religion. From his 1689 letter concerning toleration

"Secondly, no private person has any right in any manner to prejudice another person in his civil enjoyments because he is of another church or religion. All the rights and franchises that belong to him as a man, or as a denizen, are inviolably to be preserved to him. These are not the business of religion. No violence nor injury is to be offered him, whether he be Christian or Pagan."

He basically shouted rights of man are not the business of religion.

This is why I am skeptical of the belief that, despite the founding fathers great efforts to stay mum on the role of religion in society, there was actually a purely Christian influence to the document. If it is anything, it reflects the wholesale mistrust of man in general or governments in particular to interpret and apply religious thinking in a manner that does not result in terrible outcomes.

And I don't blame them because Europe and the colonies were one very long running series of horrible and bloody religious civil wars and/or harsh punishments from deviations of state run religious laws.

Of course, neither Jefferson nor Paine were at the Constitutional Convention or had any significant input into the formation of the new Republic.

My dad was a professor of history whose area of specialty was colonial America (his PhD was from William & Mary). He always pointed out that the more radical folks who were not men of strong faith were excluded from the Convention, whereas the participants were mainly all men of strong faith. It's impossible to categorize them as "evangelicals" or not because labels like that had no meaning back then.

But, regardless, when the Constitution was debated and drafted, it was by men of very strong Christian faith.

Quote:

---

But, regardless, when the Constitution was debated and drafted, it was by men of very strong Christian faith.

---

debatable on the "strong" part of the Christian Faith, but the point is that if the documents were drafted by Christian men who were extremely leery of the impacts of infusing Christian belief into any foundational documents due to the potentially destabilizing or destructive aspects of such an approach, that is a whole other story. Hence the debate.

The point of this is not opinion on the relative degree of Christian fervor but this statement made above:

"The basis for our country was always rooted in Christianity/Theism." . Many people argue very convincingly that the Founding Fathers felt the best way to support the growth of faith is to have it completely disassociated with the fundamental tenets of our nation.

Macarthur said:

---

These are not modern arguments.

---

Primarily they are.

Jabin said:

---

Macarthur said:

---

These are not modern arguments.

---

Primarily they are.

---

Yep. Human nature never changes.

Yeah, I think here the exceptions prove the rule. And I also think the modern distinction between virtue and religion and policies and culture is much sharper relief today than it was then. You might say that the progressives of their day - which absolutely includes the founding fathers - are pointing towards today in that regard.

However I will say that when they're talking about the virtue of a pagan they're talking very specifically about the virtues they see written about in the lives of the great men of the past - like by Plutarch. But that doesn't mean at all that ANY of them would have actually tolerated the pagan virtue or extolled it were it to be presented to them. This is kind of an indictment of the whole enlightenment project, anyway - that after receiving the inheritance and fruits of a Christian and very much post-pagan society they turned around and pined for a fairytale version of that pagan society. Never mind the fact that by most measures the great men of the past - yes even Julius Caesar - were genocidal maniacs. Pagans can have virtue, absolutely, but the measuring stick for any society when it comes to virtue is what is normative for the good the true and the beautiful within that society. There is no view from nowhere. And that measure in early America absolutely was rooted in Christianity.

I'd like to get away from this long-winded attempt to peg everyone
with a designation like racist, fascist, Christian nationalist, etc. and
get down to brass tacks.
I see nothing wrong with having the Ten Commandments posted
at a public school as long as they aren't part of a sermon.
I see nothing wrong with schools closing for holidays like Easter.
I see nothing wrong with local churches not paying taxes, but
big time television evangelists and government contract holders
like Catholic Charities should pay taxes IMHO.

Rongagin71 said:

---

I'd like to get away from this long-winded attempt to peg everyone
with a designation like racist, fascist, Christian nationalist, etc. and
get down to brass tacks.
I see nothing wrong with having the Ten Commandments posted
at a public school as long as they aren't part of a sermon.
I see nothing wrong with schools closing for holidays like Easter.
I see nothing wrong with local churches not paying taxes, but
big time television evangelists and government contract holders
like Catholic Charities should pay taxes IMHO.

---

Agree. Christian Nationalist or Marxist is lazy.

It's also futile to talk about Locke and say divorced from religion while using religion as an operative word for a moral or value system or one derived from a faith practice. The very ideas of justice, goodness, or even rights are predicated on very Christian ideas as he uses them - they were not possible or conceivable to the pre Christian mind.

So pulling that quote out of context as if to say Locke has no concept of metaphysics undergirding his ideas of government is nonsensical.

The simpler and more direct read is to understand it as "All the rights and franchises that belong to him as a man, or as a denizen, are inviolably to be preserved to him. These are not the business of <<any particular>> religion." Which, of course, is a very Christian idea, rooted in the concept of imago dei.

If you don't think that the election is about who gets the money,
take a look at this meme and factor in how much is spent on the
military, social programs, and how taxes are set to favor/punish.

Rongagin71 said:

---

If you don't think that the election is about who gets the money,
take a look at this meme and factor in how much is spent on the
military, social programs, and how taxes are set to favor/punish.

---

You should see a comparative chart of the same things for the past 20 years. Except for Ukraine the U.S. has been doing this for quite some time.

94chem said:

---

Meanwhile, the state of Oklahoma about to spend $3.2 million on KJV leather Trump-endorsed bibles?

---

At $750/person, that'd help at least 4,267 North Carolinians.

But 3.2million won't even buy one old jet fighter.

Still, I'd take it if I was like Top Dog over a little country
and the U.S. offered support to counter a Chinese offer.
U.N. votes are valuable to that extent, I guess.

I don't think there's any doubt that the devil can use money more effectively than congress. My father has been a Gideon for over 60 years. One phone call from any school in Oklahoma, and the Gideons would be there to hand out FREE Bibles in a modern, readable translation. But why read the Word of God when we can make it an idol instead?

The bigger the contract, the bigger the kickback.

Rongagin71 said:

---

The bigger the contract, the bigger the kickback.

---

10% for the big guy, right?

Yeah, I've heard that Biden made some remark like that in a telephone conversation with his son, but I have no idea if that was a literal kickback request.
I do know that a lot of legal stuff like campaign donations, speaker fees, and jobs for relatives goes on - then there is illegal stuff like insider stock info and loans that don't have to be repaid.
Oh. and parties.