The World According to Nick - Our Christian Nation

Wednesday, December 26, 2007

Our Christian Nation - Est. 1954

I always find it amusing when I read opinions regarding religion and government that seem to take it as a point of faith that our nation is a "Christian nation", and seem to assume that our religious traditions date back to the time of the Founding Fathers. As it turns out, this is far from the truth. Let's take a look at some of the more contentious issues which have faced us lately:

One Nation, Under God: Here are some fun facts about our Pledge of Allegiance. For the first 100 years this nation existed, we actually didn't have any pledge of allegiance at all. The first pledge came into being through a proclamation by President Benjamin Harrison in 1892, and did not contain the words "Under God". Instead, it read "I Pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all." The words "Under God" were only inserted into the pledge through an act of Congress in 1954, thanks in no small part to the Knights of Columbus.

In God We Trust: This is the official motto of the United States of America. However, for more than 150 years, this nation actually had no motto at all. The unofficial motto was (and in many ways still is) the Latin phrase E Pluribus Unum, which means "From many, one". "In God We Trust" was established as this nation's official motto in 1956, once again through an act of Congress. The phrase "In God We Trust" had appeared on coinage off and on only since the Civil War, and only appeared on paper currency after 1957. The use of the phrase on coinage has been a source of controversy from nearly the beginning, even by people of faith. Many have believed that it is sacrilegious to put the name of God on something as common as money.

Treaty of Tripoli: This is a fun one to bring up. Article 11 of the treaty that was signed after the end of the first Barbary War (1796) states:

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 tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

What is interesting about this, is that the treaty was originally drafted in Arabic, and then translated to English, and it seems that this phrasing isn't contained in the original Arabic text. What is not a point of contention however is that this text was not only read aloud in the Senate during ratification, but signed by President Adams and unanimously passed by the Senate. Many people will argue the merit of this text, and whether it has any legal standing regarding the current laws of our nation... but what can't be put in doubt, is that the Senate unanimously believed our nation is not founded on the Christian religion.

Now, many of you I'm sure will take great offense to what I'm suggesting here. Ours is a Christian Nation dammit Nick! Our Founding Fathers were all good God fearing Christian men of honor! I don't disagree with that. However, our Founding Fathers were God fearing Christian men in their private lives. Suggesting that they brought religion into law is foolish, and counter-intuitive to our history, since we know that our Founding Fathers feared government intrusiveness in our lives. There was no need for religious statements in government, because government had little influence in what we did.

The need for religious statements, acknowledgements, and displays has only cropped up in the last 50+ years, only because of the increased influence of government in our every day lives. The mistake that so many Conservatives make is to add to the problem, and insist that government also include religion. I find this ironic since those same Conservatives will criticize government as incapable of properly handling our health care needs, our retirement funds, and a whole host of other issues that effect us.

What makes Conservatives think that government can handle our salvation?!

Posted at 9:42 AM by Nick |

12 Comments | No Trackbacks

Add to del.icio.us | Digg this Post | Filed Under: Politics

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:31:58 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

You really don't get it Nick.

Fred

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 11:38:12 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

That is perhaps one of the more useless comments I've ever received on my blog Fred. It contains no argument, no counter point, no fact, no debate. It is simply dismissive, and passive aggressive. You're better than that.

Nick

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 5:19:37 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Fred doesn't seem to understand that many of us don't like religion in the public realm. What I don't get is the conservative stance of trying to keep government out of everything except promotion of religious beliefs.

Esenberg makes a point about our society needing religion to stay moral or something like that, but I am not buying it. Religion will always play a part in American society, with or without any sanctioning or recognition by the government. At this point it is all about power. The religious see their power being eroded by an increasingly powerful secular movement and are trying to retain their influence by staking whatever claim they can in the public realm.

The non-religious among us are comfortable with our morality being informed by religious traditions, but we don't want our government to be complicit in the promotion of a dogma that states we need to follow a certain set of rules prescribed in an ancient text or be condemned to hell.

3rd way

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:09:38 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

I think Prof. Esenberg is quite eager to use more government dollars to promote religion. By religion he means Christianity. By Christianity, he means Catholicism. By Catholicism, he doesn't mean kumbaya-help-the-poor-obey-the-Pope-always, he means whatever he wants it to mean. All this because he wants more Nativities at Christmas. Well, I bet he wants more than that. He didn't say what. He didn't say where it would end.

Fred doesn't want to say it out loud, I think Fred wants the atheists banned from talking in public from Thanksgiving to January 2. He'd be willing to accomodate them eventually if they stayed polite and didn't offend anyone, were willing to know their place, didn't interbreed with the believers, and stayed on their side of the tracks.

John Foust

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:16:00 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Look, I don't think anyone here has bad intentions John. I just wonder... what is the benefit? Is there any? Is this the proper role of a limited government? Religion is supposed to be a personal experience of faith. Since when is government good at dealing with anything on that level?

Nick Schweitzer

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:38:21 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Well to a point I agree with both sides on the arguments, but both sides are wrong.

"One Nation, Under God" and "In God We Trust" are not only recent but clearly in conflict with the first amendment, because they were "established" by the government; in this case congress runing afoul of the establishment clause.

OTOH that does not mean religion cannot be displayed publically. The government is supposed to play a passive roll niether supporting nor discouraging "public" displays of religion. That is true whether it's on private or public propery.

For any part of government to ban religious displays and symbols, especially on Holidays is at least as unconstitutional as the above infractions that Nick mentioned. In this case it isn't the "establishment" part of the clause but the but the free excercise part.

Neither side will settle for a passive roll for government. One side wanting to establish religion, and the other wanting to prevent the free exercise of religion. Both sides clearly being wrong.

Off topic side note: Your comment secition is not compatible with Firefox 2 browsers. The editing line extends out invisibly under the right sidebar where a person is typing blind.

Sandi

Wednesday, December 26, 2007 10:50:52 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

I have no doubt that Fred and Esenberg believe they hold the highest and most noble intentions when they allow government into the promotion of religion. I'd like both of them to be much more concrete about it. Let's see some examples. Would they prefer more? Is a Nativity enough? Would all the Catholic Holy Days be even better? Who would decide, and on what basis? How much would be too much to spend on this? What about dissent? Are the atheists banned from the public square in December? The Scientologists all the time? The Latter-Day Saints, too? Would government be required to inject religion, or could they decide to remain neutral?

We only need to look at examples like Green Bay to see how elected yahoos will believe that their position allows them to choose the Nativity for the prime spot and ban all others, then add a blinking Rudolph to attempt to make it all better when someone complains.

John Foust

Thursday, December 27, 2007 8:34:39 AM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Sandi, the question I have is... is not putting religious displays in the public square the same as promoting atheism? Because that seems to be the crux of the argument. I don't think it does. That's tantamount to saying "a lack of evidence is evidence itself," which I also don't believe in. If we were to prevent religious displays in the public square, and then print "There Is No God" on all our money, then I'd buy that argument.

Having no displays at all really is simply suggesting that the government takes no position one way or the other, which I think isn't a bad position to take. It's not so much "a wall of seperation" as an acknowledgement that religion, and how you practice it, is none of the government's freaking business.

Nick

Thursday, December 27, 2007 1:28:45 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

A true libertarian ought to want government to be neutral about religion. Not promoting it, nor impeding it.

The problem with people who want religion cleansed from the public square is that doing that is not neutral..

Nobody objects when government honors (say) Martin Luther King's birthday, or St. Patrick's Day, or (except for a few very politically correct types) Columbus Day.

To say that government cannot honor (say) Christmas or Easter or Hanukkah is biased against religion. It says government can honor and recognize all kinds of things, so long as they are secular.

That's biased, and it's unfair, and I don't think that attitude follows from a principled respect for the Constitution. I think if follows from not liking religion.

John McAdams

Thursday, December 27, 2007 3:26:46 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

When the government display religious symbols they are clearly promoting (i.e establishing) a religion and that's why it shouldn't be done. That in no way impeds religion.

daver

Thursday, December 27, 2007 3:56:13 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

Well John, that leads to an interesting question. Do you not think that celebrating Martin Luther King Day, and the associated things like Black History Month promote better race relations, and other the causes of racial equality? Wasn't that part of the purpose of establishing them?

Nick

Friday, December 28, 2007 12:09:16 PM (Central Standard Time, UTC-06:00)

For 240 years the "New England Primar" was used as a primary text book in our public schools. The New England Primar teaches from biblical lessons. The public schools were created for the purpose to make sure all citizens could read the Bible so they could effectively deal and participate in goverment. 90% of all inventions in this world came from Christians.

Our Countries greatness is because of Christianity, not despite it. It's decline is from the few who deceptively try to keep it out.

PS - The quote you use from the treaty was simply trying to deal with a Muslim problem of pirating our ships. It was thought that Muslims believed that we established a State Church or Religion as did other European countries of the day and it was thought that the Muslims would stop if they had known we did not have a State Church. That was wrong and we had to send the marines.

Anonymous

Comments are closed.