NationStates Jolt Archive

John Adams, the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and became a Unitarian. It was during Adams' presidency that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI that:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion - as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen, - and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arrising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries. (Charles I. Bevans, ed. Treaties and Other International Agreements of the United States of America 1776-1949. Vol. 11: Philippines-United Arab Republic. Washington D.C.: Department of State Publications, 1974, p. 1072).

Ah yes... have fun with this people!

"The trinity, the deity of Christ"? I don't think you understand the concept. Please, clarify.

Sounds like Bush has a PR problem. Anyhow, Mr. Adams did this after the fact, Christian ideals seeped into the constituation at some degree. Just my opinion though, as there's nothing wrong with that, as long as the US government is fair with everyone of its citizens. We are a secular nation after all.

"The trinity, the deity of Christ"? I don't think you understand the concept. Please, clarify.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism (it's in the first paragraph)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarianism (it's in the first paragraph)
Thanks. But "the Trinity" is not "the deity of Christ".

Its the relationship between Father and Son, and the mystery that connects them, the Holy Spirit. Christ is one with the Trinity. The Trinity doesn't "rule" over Him. That's why I stated that I felt that the OP didn't understand the concept.

Fine the Unitarians rejected it.

Thanks. But "the Trinity" is not "the deity of Christ".
I don't think anyone stated that it was. You misread:
rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ
which was
rejected the Trinity, [and] the deity of Christ.
Otherwise, I'm familiar with the dogmas thank you very much.

Hmmm... if you're really trying to agitate people, tell 'em that the USA was founded to be a nation for white people only, according to the Naturalization Act of 1790.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

I don't think anyone stated that it was. You misread:
rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ
which was
rejected the Trinity, [and] the deity of Christ.
Otherwise, I'm familiar with the dogmas thank you very much.
In my learning, "deity" should read "divinity".
"Deity" is a god, like the Big Guy. Big G. You certainly know.
We're just arguing over sematics and whatnot. How interesting. :)

It wasn't just Adams. Thomas Jefferson cut and pasted the New Testament together, removing any referances to miracles, including the resurrection, and Thomas Pain and Benjamin Franklin were both deists.

True.

George Washington was a satatnist, or a mason. I forget which.

... that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator certain inalienable rights, ...

George Washington was a Mason, but that's not a religion.

Have a nice day.

The US sure isn't. Many founding fathers have said as much.

Belief in a creator does not = Christianity

Actually, I've been watching Christian broadcasting recently, and they seem to make a concerted pitch that America was founded on Christianity, based on cut-and-paste statements made by people like Adams (ironically, I've never noticed Jefferson mentioned). Of course, they neglect to mention that if America were a Christian nation, you would think that they'd have mentioned God in the Constitution, as well as deleted that darn little part of Article Six that forbids any religious test for office.

Belief in a creator does not = Christianity
But on NS, it does. :p

Actually, there is basic miscommunication here. In many ways, the US was founded on quite a few principles derived from christianity. It was not, however, set up as some sort of official christian nation. If it was an "official" christian nation then certain other nations, namely islamic theocracies, would not trade with it, thus the point of all of the official statements on the matter. However it was most certainly founded on many christian principles.

Futhermore, as a New Yorker I always enjoy pointing out that most of our American principles (free speech, tolerance, etc.) came NOT from the highly intolerant and strict Puritans of New England but were actually passed down from the more liberal and secular settlers of New Amsterdam! An excellent read on the subject is The Island At The Center OF The World (http://www.randomhouse.com/features/island/) by Russel Shorto. IMHO, they deserve a place in American history better then the second-place bumbling fools of Washington Irving's Knickerbocker Tales:
http://www.iment.com/maida/familytree/henry/theman/images/dutchmansmoking.jpg

/historicalnerdiness

In my learning, "deity" should read "diviness".
"Deity" is a god, like the Big Guy. Big G. You certainly know.
We're just arguing over sematics and whatnot. How interesting. :)
"Divinity". :p

It wasn't just Adams. Thomas Jefferson cut and pasted the New Testament together, removing any referances to miracles, including the resurrection, and Thomas Pain and Benjamin Franklin were both deists.
Yes he was; in fact, if you give me a minute, I might be able to pull up the link...

"Divinity". :p
*blushes* Thank you. :D

English and French Common Law are (or were, in the late 18th century) based on the Bible (mostly).

US Law is pretty much based on English and French Common Law, as far as I know.

Therefore...

Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State (http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm)

Here is the link as promised...

In my learning, "deity" should read "divinity".
"Deity" is a god, like the Big Guy. Big G. You certainly know.
We're just arguing over sematics and whatnot. How interesting. :)

When in doubt, check the dictionary! (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=deity)


de·i·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (d-t, d-)
n. pl. de·i·ties
1 )A god or goddess.
2) a) The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity.
b)Deity God. Used with the.


In other words, this is a correct usage of the word, although not one in common use these days.

Futhermore, as a New Yorker I always enjoy pointing out that most of our American principles (free speech, tolerance, etc.) came NOT from the highly intolerant and strict Puritans of New England but were actually passed down from the more liberal and secular settlers of New Amsterdam! An excellent read on the subject is
Who were, in the end, christians.

Treaties say a bunch of shiat all the time that a nation doesn't truly mean, whether or not they are considered "law of the land" here. It was meant to end a conflict. The Japanese called us friends when they were preparing for Pearl Harbor, and I wouldn't suppose that any agreements we had with them really mattered at the time either. Citing what was used in the treaty is not sufficient evidence, IMO.

However, one could make the argument using the notion that the nation is one of the people and by the people, and for the people. Using that premise, and understanding that a super-majority of people were Christian in this time-frame, that indeed, the nation was founded with a strong Christian base that influenced most leaders of that time. People only cite certain founding fathers. There were dozens of men involved in the signing of the Declaration as well as the Constitutional Convention, and statistically it is almost certain they were strong Christians as well.

Though the country no longer professes Christianity in the way it once had decades and centuries ago, much like our European counterparts, Christianity played a strong hand in governmental affairs and thus shaped the direction of our nation.

That is undeniable. And I'm not even a believer.

Who were, in the end, christians.
Yes, but liberal for the day. The point I'm trying to make is that fundementalists et al believe we are based on the christian traditions of the Puritans, which is in many aspects not the case. The dutch were basically the opposite end of the spectrum at the time.

We would not be having this conversion were it not for two people whom we just have to honor, even though they were very wrong: Tocqueville and Max Weber. They spuriously connected protestantism with secularism, just because they had a comment on Europe (not America). Even more so, secularists could at least agree to disagree with Catholics. With Lutherano-Calvinism and its creations there is no such armistice, even though the two seem to have a bit in common at the very beginning.
To those who say "Puritans and other resisters are naturally democratic", I say Apartheid, the Confederated States of America, the Republic of Geneva.
To those who say "Catholicism is totalitarian" (when it is, in fact, just vertical), I say Christian Democracy, Christian Socialism, civil rights, ecumenism, dabate in the modern world.

This is just to dismantle cliches. I'm sure that neither always fits into one or the other options.

English and French Common Law are (or were, in the late 18th century) based on the Bible (mostly).

US Law is pretty much based on English and French Common Law, as far as I know.

Therefore...

Firstly, I challenge you to find a single U.S. case that cites "French common law."

Secondly, English common law was not based on the Bible or ecclesiastical law. English common law started in Norman courts that applied Medieval norms. Ecclesiastical law may have influenced the common law in some respects, but they are very different bodies of law.

Who were, in the end, christians.

They were Christians but their ideas were not. Classic liberal theory paid some lip-service to the Christian God, but did not rely on the Bible to develop liberal moral and political philosophy.

Firstly, I challenge you to find a single U.S. that cites "French common law."

You never specified WHAT U.S. thing you wanted.

However, the State of Louisiana's civil law does have some of its legal roots based in French tradition, mixed with Spanish and others.

In fact, many theologians of the time decried liberal thought as being fundamentally unchristian.

Mind you, they also decried the basis of democracy, on the basis that autocracy was the natural, god-given state of affairs for humanity.

Sorry, fixed it.

Louisiana law would be a little irrelevant considering that we are talking about the U.S. being founded as a Christian nation.

However, the State of Louisiana's civil law does have some of its legal roots based in French tradition, mixed with Spanish and others.
Well, considering it was part of a territory owned by France...

The major misconception here is that, while our country was NOT founded on protestant principles, or even Christian principles, it was founded on the basic structure of Judeo-Christian values and morals. Therefore, it has nothing to do with being Christian, Jewish or Muslim, because the principles arent exlcusive to one of the three, but, instead are intertwinned between all of them, stemming from Judaism...the mother religion.

So to say that the U.S. was founded on Christian principles would be false.

However, to say that America was founded on traditional Judeo-Christian values would be right on the dinero.

Hope that helped.

Actually, I've been watching Christian broadcasting recently, and they seem to make a concerted pitch that America was founded on Christianity, based on cut-and-paste statements made by people like Adams (ironically, I've never noticed Jefferson mentioned). Of course, they neglect to mention that if America were a Christian nation, you would think that they'd have mentioned God in the Constitution, as well as deleted that darn little part of Article Six that forbids any religious test for office.

I've read that, during the writing of the Constitution, one of the state delegates suggested that Christ be mentioned in the prologue. Apparently, he was the only one that voted in favor of that proposition.

Treaties say a bunch of shiat all the time that a nation doesn't truly mean, whether or not they are considered "law of the land" here. It was meant to end a conflict. The Japanese called us friends when they were preparing for Pearl Harbor, and I wouldn't suppose that any agreements we had with them really mattered at the time either. Citing what was used in the treaty is not sufficient evidence, IMO.

If you cannot cite a treaty, then you cannot cite any laws, or, indeed, the Constitution itself. After all, we don't know if they were just putting those things in there that they didn't mean just for the hell of it.

If you cannot cite a treaty, then you cannot cite any laws, or, indeed, the Constitution itself. After all, we don't know if they were just putting those things in there that they didn't mean just for the hell of it.
Well... how DO we know? :D

*ahem*

But even still, I find it more relevant than a modern Christian claiming that the USA is a Christian nation, simply because this has roots and it can be researched, plus it dates much closer to the days of the initiation of the Constitution.

This applies to any claim that a country was founded on any certain set of principles.

After all, if you can prove that some no-name nation in the middle of nowhere was founded on the principles of Zoroasterian then great; you've at least managed to produce soem credible evidence.

... that all men are created equal, and are endowed by their Creator certain inalienable rights, ...George Washington was a Mason, but that's not a religion.

Have a nice day.
the declaration of Independence in no way signifies a Christian foundation to the country's founding principals. It was a propaganda tool meant to arouse popular support for the revolution and to anger the Brittish Empire. As such it is natural that it appeal to the dominant religious feelings of the times.

The nation was founded on CHristian Principles---Not on Chrisitian religion.

A distinct difference.

However, it was poorly done on the that.

Much as one can take on Buddhist principles and not be Buddhist so to can one Christian principles and not be Christian--I believe it is fairly simple.

Most historians agree on that point.

What modern Christo-Politicos are doing is just saying "Founded on Christianity" which is a lie.

The founding fathers recognized the need for a value system, and the Christian mythos contains a very good one---for a free society--what with being ransomed from bondage and what not.

But being that they were not all Christian(and like it or not Some were)
They understood the nightmare it could create if the Government contained religion itself--they didnt want religion---they wanted a virtuous system.

Hence Christian Principles, not religion.

The major misconception here is that, while our country was NOT founded on protestant principles, or even Christian principles, it was founded on the basic structure of Judeo-Christian values and morals. Therefore, it has nothing to do with being Christian, Jewish or Muslim, because the principles arent exlcusive to one of the three, but, instead are intertwinned between all of them, stemming from Judaism...the mother religion.

So to say that the U.S. was founded on Christian principles would be false.

However, to say that America was founded on traditional Judeo-Christian values would be right on the dinero.

Hope that helped.
The idea that the US was created according to the basics of Judeo-Christian moral systems is just as untrue. AFAIK, the basic Judeo-Christian value is submission to God's will. That is why people are following all the other moral bits, right?

I don't see what the US has to do with that at all.

John Adams, the second U.S. President rejected the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and became a Unitarian. It was during Adams' presidency that the Senate ratified the Treaty of Peace and Friendship with Tripoli, which states in Article XI that:

That's right. If you want an example of a nation founded on Christian principles, take a look at the original Irish Constitution.

English and French Common Law are (or were, in the late 18th century) based on the Bible (mostly).

US Law is pretty much based on English and French Common Law, as far as I know.

Therefore...


I'm reasonably sure that the English Common Law was not based on the Bible.
Can you please provide evidence that it was?

Ta

CDA

Well... how DO we know? :D

*ahem*

But even still, I find it more relevant than a modern Christian claiming that the USA is a Christian nation, simply because this has roots and it can be researched, plus it dates much closer to the days of the initiation of the Constitution.

This applies to any claim that a country was founded on any certain set of principles.

After all, if you can prove that some no-name nation in the middle of nowhere was founded on the principles of Zoroasterian then great; you've at least managed to produce soem credible evidence.
I may be wrong, but didn't Persia fit the criterion of that last paragraph? Even though now Iran is more Islamic...

Firstly, I challenge you to find a single U.S. case that cites "French common law."

Secondly, English common law was not based on the Bible or ecclesiastical law. English common law started in Norman courts that applied Medieval norms. Ecclesiastical law may have influenced the common law in some respects, but they are very different bodies of law.

This is a challenge that can't be taken on = no-one will find a 'french common law' because the common law is unique to the english legal system family. The French have a Civilian system. so 'French common law' don't exist :)



English common law started in Norman courts that applied Medieval norms.

Basically true.

After 1066, William the Conqueror sent judges riding around England to find out what the customs, laws and precedents were in his new territory. He then basically brought them all back to Westminster and set up a new court system based on a modifed, coherent version of these rules. The new king's courts were much better administered than anything else and were widely regarded as quicker, cheaper and fairer than anything else.

Also, because (for some reason I forget) the the decisions of the courts were in a hierarchy and reported, meaning a body of precedent could be, and was developed.


In this way the common law became very very practical and flexible. So yes, the common law has its origins in Medieval practices, yes it was developed by the Norman courts and I'd add that it evolved owing to real-life events.

that's in a marked contrast to other systems which are based on a codified set of something or other. The Turks for example, have just re-written their whole law code. You can pick it up and carry it around in one slim volume.

You'd need several trucks to carry around the whole body of the English common-law!!!

I've read that, during the writing of the Constitution, one of the state delegates suggested that Christ be mentioned in the prologue. Apparently, he was the only one that voted in favor of that proposition.

I can't say anything about that. All I know is that if we really were big on making this a Judeo-Christian nation, you would think we'd make it a requirement to be Jewish or Christian to hold public office, or at the very least not prohibit any religious test passed by the legislature.

Thomas Jefferson acknowledged the roots of American law in Anglo-Saxon common law which originated before the conversion of England to Christianity.

I can't say anything about that. All I know is that if we really were big on making this a Judeo-Christian nation, you would think we'd make it a requirement to be Jewish or Christian to hold public office, or at the very least not prohibit any religious test passed by the legislature.

(continued)- or to forbid idolatry, or turn the cheek in time of war, or rehabilitate people convicted of larceny by "giving them the shirts off our backs", or to have the judiciary "judge not lest they be judged", or outlaw capital punishment because "let he who has not sinned cast the first stone", or to embrace socialism because of the parable where the two farmers get the same reward for unequal time at work, or the government to be "peacemakers", or to not stick "novus ordo seclorum" on their currency (in God we trust was added in the late 1800's I believe, to contrast us to the rising threat of Communism).

Yes, I know thats all one sentance.

Well, I think it's safe to say that America is not completely, militantly secular. There is a connection between the government and certain religious principles, and presidents, senators and congressmen openly flout and practice their religion, which usually is Christianity.

Futhermore, as a New Yorker I always enjoy pointing out that most of our American principles (free speech, tolerance, etc.) came NOT from the highly intolerant and strict Puritans of New England but were actually passed down from the more liberal and secular settlers of New Amsterdam! An excellent read on the subject is The Island At The Center OF The World (http://www.randomhouse.com/features/island/) by Russel Shorto. IMHO, they deserve a place in American history better then the second-place bumbling fools of Washington Irving's Knickerbocker Tales:
http://www.iment.com/maida/familytree/henry/theman/images/dutchmansmoking.jpg

/historicalnerdiness
Cool! I have that book but haven't opened it yet. I'll make it my next read, after "The Cousins' Wars" by Kevin Phillips, about the political, economic and religious issues that drove civil conflicts in Britain and North America from the English Civil War to the US Civil War. Very topical.

(historynerd #2 ;) )

I'ts one of if not the best history books I've ever read. He manages to write history in a very fluid and almost story-like style, no easy task.:)

GO HISTORYNERDS!:p

I'ts one of if not the best history books I've ever read. He manages to write history in a very fluid and almost story-like style, no easy task.:)

GO HISTORYNERDS!:p
Noted and thanks. I should warn you: If you go for Phillips's book, it's also very well written but it weighs about 4 lbs. Good read and good workout.

English and French Common Law are (or were, in the late 18th century) based on the Bible (mostly).

US Law is pretty much based on English and French Common Law, as far as I know.

Therefore...
And the biblical laws of the ancient Jews (such as Christ) were based, I believe, on the Code of Hammurabi.

Therefore...American men should get their beards permed? :confused:

Notes on the Founding Fathers and the Separation of Church and State (http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm)

Here is the link as promised...


Thank you! I am having a running argument with my son, who desperately wants the United States be a Christian nation. Everything I have cited to him is roundly denied. This may not do any good, but I'm going to email it to him. Maybe it will, at least, make him think.

George Washington was a Mason, but that's not a religion.

Have a nice day.
Do you really, truly think that's a slam-dunk argument clincher?
:rolleyes:

He was obviously referring to FSM. *nods*

The US sure isn't. Many founding fathers have said as much.

Belief in a creator does not = Christianity

Not according to Pat Robertson....

Crazy fool Buwhan! You must accept the word of Robertson!

Not according to Pat Robertson....

Crazy fool Buwhan! You must accept the word of Robertson!
Yes, but only in certain venues ....

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/13907272.htm

Pat Robertson accused of damaging movementSONJA BARISICAssociated PressNORFOLK, Va. - Fellow conservative religious leaders have expressed concern and even open criticism over Pat Robertson's habit of shooting from the hip on his daily religious news-and-talk television program, "The 700 Club."
The Christian Coalition founder and former GOP presidential candidate has said American agents should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for pulling Israel out of the Gaza Strip.
Some observers say Robertson, who'll turn 76 next month, courts controversy as a strategy to stay recognizable and keep his followers mobilized. Others say he remains important to the evangelical movement that he helped create when he established the Virginia Beach-based Christian Broadcasting Network in 1960 - but he needs to stop damaging it with his words.
He canceled a speech planned for this coming Tuesday at the closing banquet of the National Religious Broadcasters convention in Dallas after NRB leaders said they were concerned that his appearance could detract from the event.
"He is in a very visible leadership position and comments such as recent ones related to Mr. Sharon and so many others are misinformed and presumptuous and border on arrogance," said David Dockery, president of Union University, a private college affiliated with the Tennessee Baptist Convention.
Dockery suggested Robertson might want to consult other theologians "before making these pronouncements so quickly."
"It puts the evangelical movement in a bad light when that happens because people make broad generalizations, rightly or wrongly, all the time," said Dockery, who also is chairman of the board for the Council for Christian Colleges and Universities.
Robertson, through a spokesman, declined to be interviewed by The Associated Press.
He recently said on ABC's "Good Morning America" that he ad-libs his comments after watching news segments.
He later told the Christian magazine "World" that he's being more careful and reviewing news stories before going on the air because "I have seen an intensity of attack against me that is unparalleled in the 40-some years of the broadcast."
He apologized after facing swift condemnation for his Jan. 5 statement that Sharon was punished for "dividing God's land."
Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics and religious liberty commission, has said he was "stunned and appalled that Pat Robertson would claim to know the mind of God concerning whether particular tragic events ... were the judgments of God."
Robertson cited other demands on his time when he canceled his speech to the National Religious Broadcasters convention. NRB President Frank Wright told Associated Press Radio that Robertson was not asked to cancel, but he said NRB leaders did worry that the firestorm over his Sharon comments would detract media attention from the convention's focus. Robertson is on the group's board of directors.
Robertson started out as a Southern Baptist, but today he is a charismatic evangelical and believes that God is involved in guiding world events, said Barry Hankins, professor of history and church-state studies at Baylor University. He tries to interpret contemporary events as "being part of the drama of God's activity in the world."
"He puts the most fantastic spin on things to have a gripping quality about them to keep the ground troops alert," Hankins said.
On the other hand, Brian Britt, director of the Religious Studies Program at Virginia Tech, said Robertson's remarks aren't just "off-the-wall, crazy uncle stuff" but part of a strategy that earns him headlines.
When people attack Robertson, he wins sympathy for appearing to be an underdog, Britt said.
"It reinforces an image of Christianity as a persecuted religion, a religion that is being hounded by the secularists out of the public square, rather than a dominant and hegemonic force," Britt said.

This is a challenge that can't be taken on = no-one will find a 'french common law' because the common law is unique to the english legal system family. The French have a Civilian system. so 'French common law' don't exist :)

And that is exactly why I issued that challenge. ;)




Basically true.

After 1066, William the Conqueror sent judges riding around England to find out what the customs, laws and precedents were in his new territory. He then basically brought them all back to Westminster and set up a new court system based on a modifed, coherent version of these rules. The new king's courts were much better administered than anything else and were widely regarded as quicker, cheaper and fairer than anything else.

Also, because (for some reason I forget) the the decisions of the courts were in a hierarchy and reported, meaning a body of precedent could be, and was developed.


In this way the common law became very very practical and flexible. So yes, the common law has its origins in Medieval practices, yes it was developed by the Norman courts and I'd add that it evolved owing to real-life events.

that's in a marked contrast to other systems which are based on a codified set of something or other. The Turks for example, have just re-written their whole law code. You can pick it up and carry it around in one slim volume.

You'd need several trucks to carry around the whole body of the English common-law!!!

Yeah, I tried to keep it simple, but a more thorough analysis is always welcome.

Who said America was founded on Christian Principles? I always thought it didnt, and it doesnt.