US founded on "Christian Principles"?

I've read the Old and New Testaments, and I couldn't find anything about representative government, separation of powers, or individual human rights anywhere in there. There was some stuff in the New Testament that suggested kings were not fundamentally different from members of the lower classes, but that's about it.
 
From the Mayflower compact DOC quoted above:

Mayflower Compact

"Having undertaken, for the Glory of God and advancement of the Christian Faith and Honour of our King and Country, a Voyage to plant the First Colony in the Northern Parts of Virginia,
Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. The Plymouth colony was founded on Christianity and allegiance to the King of England. DOC, are you suggesting the United States was founded on the principle of allegiance to the King of England?
 
Last edited:
godless dave said:
From the Mayflower compact DOC quoted above:



Emphasis mine. The Plymouth colony was founded on Christianity and allegiance to the King of England. DOC, are you suggesting the United States was founded on the principle of allegiance to the King of England?
Click to expand...

Yes - you just got a bit confused. ;)
 
DOC said:
1st Charter of Virginia 1607
Mayflower Compact
The New England Confederation 1643 (Union the New England colonies).
Click to expand...

They also wore funny suits and hats with buckles on them in those days, and we don't do that anymore, either.
 
skeptical said:
I have heard this mantra, or something similar, repeated many times in recent days: "The US is founded on Christian Principles"

Now, I have read the US Constitution many times. I have taken a Constitutional law course. I have even waded through some of "The common law". And I cannot for the life of me figure out what this phrase is supposed to mean.

As far as I can tell, there are no Christian principles in the US Constitution, with the possible exception of the endorsement of slavery.

I understand that the people making these statements really aren't even trying to do an analysis, its just something they think sounds good. But is there even the remotest shred of evidence behind this claim?
Click to expand...


There was very lively debate on approximately this subject that took place in an old JREF thread which, sadly, was culled in one of the forum purges.

However, the kind folks over at SkepticReport have archived all or most of the thread content; you can find it here.

In that thread I discuss, from a lawyer and legal historian's perspective, the senses in which these sorts of claims about the Judeo-Christian connection to U.S. law are false, as well as the senses in which they can be said to be are true. (I note that the impetus for that thread was a claim regarding the Ten Commandments specifically, but the thread wasn't limited to that.)

In a more general political sense, these sorts of arguments often hinge on how direct or indirect a connection one cares to draw. Just for example, a person might allow that the United States was founded upon Lockean principles. But Locke grounded his political philosophy largely in Christian theological principles as he understood them. Does this mean that the United States was indirectly founded, to some extent, upon Christian theological principles? Regardless of the answer to that question, it's kind of difficult to see what immediately practical policy implications would emerge from it.
 
Last edited:
What did they call "Christian Principles" before Christ? It was against the principles of most all societies to steal, murder, lie, cheat before Christ, even before the 10 Commandments were supposedly given to Moses. Is it impossible for anyone who does not know about Christ to be “Principled” (i.e. not murder, steal, etc.)?

Isn’t that the rationale slavery apologists had, claiming that the natives of Africa couldn’t possible be moral human beings with a soul, “They don’t even know about Christ”!

Picture a slave ship..... are the Christians the ones walking around on deck, or chained down in the hull?
 
ceo_esq said:
In a more general political sense, these sorts of arguments often hinge on how direct or indirect a connection one cares to draw. Just for example, a person might allow that the United States was founded upon Lockean principles. But Locke grounded his political philosophy largely in Christian theological principles as he understood them. Does this mean that the United States was indirectly founded, to some extent, upon Christian theological principles? Regardless of the answer to that question, it's kind of difficult to see what immediately practical policy implications would emerge from it.
Click to expand...

Thanks ceo, this was the best post on this subject that I have read so far. Very balanced and insightful.
 
Treaty of Tripoli said:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;
Click to expand...

One of the reasons for that is that they wanted to leave that authority up to the states.

And the "federal government" might not be founded on religion but the country of the United States:

1) has a national motto of "In God we Trust"

2) has a national Congress that begins every legislative session with a prayer.

3) has a Supreme Court that begins each session with its own exhortation, "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

4)has Congressional and military chaplains on its payroll.


And just for the record that Treaty with a Muslim nation eventually failed and we had to go to war with them.
 
ceo_esq said:
There was very lively debate on approximately this subject that took place in an old JREF thread which, sadly, was culled in one of the forum purges.

However, the kind folks over at SkepticReport have archived all or most of the thread content; you can find it here.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll check it out.

ceo_esq said:
In that thread I discuss, from a lawyer and legal historian's perspective, the senses in which these sorts of claims about the Judeo-Christian connection to U.S. law are false, as well as the senses in which they can be said to be are true. (I note that the impetus for that thread was a claim regarding the Ten Commandments specifically, but the thread wasn't limited to that.)

In a more general political sense, these sorts of arguments often hinge on how direct or indirect a connection one cares to draw. Just for example, a person might allow that the United States was founded upon Lockean principles. But Locke grounded his political philosophy largely in Christian theological principles as he understood them. Does this mean that the United States was indirectly founded, to some extent, upon Christian theological principles? Regardless of the answer to that question, it's kind of difficult to see what immediately practical policy implications would emerge from it.
Click to expand...

Good point. For me, in order for the statement to be accurate, one would have to trace definite principles in the US Constitution directly to definite principles in, at a minimum, the NT, perhaps even directly to purported statements of Jesus but I'm willing to start with the NT and go from there.

And yes, I agree it is hard to see what practical applications tracing such principles would have, its just annoying to me that these statements are bantered abut with no analysis whatsoever. Since the US Constitution never mentions God or Jesus or Christianity, it seems a very strong claim to make, unsupported by any obvious connection.

It is made even more annoying and downright disturbing when polls show that 55% of the US pop agree with the statement that the US Constitution ESTABLISHES a Christian nation. That shows a very disturbing level of ignorance about the founding document of ones own country by over half the adult population. An ignorance that is only fed by statements that the US was founded on "Christian principles".
 
DOC said:
One of the reasons for that is that they wanted to leave that authority up to the states.

And the "federal government" might not be founded on religion but the country of the United States:

1) has a national motto of "In God we Trust"

2) has a national Congress that begins every legislative session with a prayer.

3) has a Supreme Court that begins each session with its own exhortation, "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

4)has Congressional and military chaplains on its payroll.


And just for the record that Treaty with a Muslim nation eventually failed and we had to go to war with them.
Click to expand...

Oo. Oo. Let me!

1) not part of the Constitution

2) not part of the Constitution

3) not part of the Constitution

4) not part of the Constitution

:D:D
 
DOC said:
One of the reasons for that is that they wanted to leave that authority up to the states.

And the "federal government" might not be founded on religion but the country of the United States:

1) has a national motto of "In God we Trust"

2) has a national Congress that begins every legislative session with a prayer.

3) has a Supreme Court that begins each session with its own exhortation, "God save the United States and this honorable Court."

4)has Congressional and military chaplains on its payroll.


And just for the record that Treaty with a Muslim nation eventually failed and we had to go to war with them.
Click to expand...

And this is relevant to the question how exactly? How does any of that bear in any fashion on the question of whether the US Constitution is founded on Christian principles? The fact that there are lots of Christians and that they routinely violate the principle of separation of Church and state is hardly material to the question of what principles are actually in the constitution.

It seems a simple enough question. Either the statement has some meaning and there are principles in the US Constitution that can be traced to Christian principles or it doesn't. If it does, what are they?
 
Pretty sure this topic has been talked to death.
--Ancient parable and cosmic truth.

Moving right along, from "Murphy's Law", out of Colorado Springs:

H.L. Mencken:
Jesus: "I must be about my father's business".
Mary: "OK, fine, I'll buy you a new hammer."

"Two goldfish in the bowl"
"So if there is no god, then who changes the water?"

I think I'm going to go gather sticks on the sabbath. I'm unarmed, so if you stone me, I'll call the cops.
 
Yep... all those things can and will be challenged in court in the coming years... they weren't there in the beginning... and they violate the first amendment. Christians are trying to rewrite history and pretend that the government was founded in a way that it wasn't. Many of our founding fathers did not believe in the divinity of Christ and showed strong deist, agnostic, and atheist leanings.
 
Ladewig said:
What, my thread wasn't good enough?
Click to expand...

Not at all. Very very good opinions and arguments by many posters.
I am just real sensitive to this topic as I read this one in its entirety last night:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74960

I am worn out, but extremely envious and in great admiration of all the wonderful logical and well documented arguments by all the bright people on this forum. It just seems like Doc's rantings are beginning to take over the whole site. At some point, one must say all this prose is merely enabling some sort of religious comstockery for a troubled mind engaged in theo-onanism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom