Country was Founded on Christian Principles - Was it?

1. 86

   GA Andersonposted 5 weeks ago

   Charlie Kirk says the USA was Founded on Christian Principles
   
   I think he is right, and that he provided legitimately arguable support for his perspective.
   
   But, the religious aspect of being "proof" isn't the question here. It's not even whether Kirk's claim is right or wrong. It is whether the reasoning used to make the claims is logical (aka arguable)?
   
   For instance, one example speaks of Moses and his tablets as being a basis and influence on common law. The validity doesn't rely on a religious aspect of whether Moses is real, but whether the contents of the tablets can logically be argued to support the point.
   
   No God needed, just an opinion on the validity of the linkage logic.
   
   Our Country was Founded on Christian Principles ft Charlie Kirk
   
   GA

   replyreport
2. 60

   Willowarborposted 5 weeks ago

   Didn't the government answer that question in the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli, which stated that the United States government "is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion". ?
   
   And the founders? They certainly held a range of religious and philosophical beliefs... from Christianity to deism , enlightenment principles and Unitarianism. 
   
   The YouTube link shows Kirk using the phrase found in the Declaration "Supreme judge" as evidence of Christian intent.  He interprets it as such. 
   
   "Nature’s God", "Creator," Supreme Judge of the World", and "Divine Providence" are all deistic, not orthodox Christian, terms. The Declaration’s author, Thomas Jefferson, was not an orthodox Christian.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Beats the hell out of me.
      
      The question was about the validity of the linkage of: scripture to philosophers to influential common law figures to religious beliefs of the time to state constitutions to the 'prayer' at the end of the declaration.
      
      The Bible handles the scripture part, but history can handle the others.
      
      For instance, I say a common explanation for the origin of our legal system talks of British common law and influential figures like Blackstone.
      
      History says Christianity predominated colonial civil society and its populace of the times. Wouldn't that be especially so in the day's VIPs? There are documented writings that say it is.
      
      The points made about the Founders' religious mindset are also documented.
      
      I didn't find any false claims (acceptance is different) that would break the logic chain.
      
      But hell, if it was a government that said it, then Tripoli it is.   ;-)
      
      GA

      replyreport
   2. 86

      GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Oops, I must have missed an edit? I only saw the first paragraph when I first replied.
      
      Kirk used the word "dominant," and I used "predominant." Do you think it is incorrect to say Christianity was the dominant religious culture of the colonies?
      
      Relative to the Founders, it seems reasonable to say 2/3 of the signers declared themselves Christian. About 3/4 of the convention delegates were also Christians. 2 or 3, or even a few Diests, et al, don't change the dominant statement.
      
      Relative to the variety of terms, "Nature’s God", "Creator," Supreme Judge of the World", and "Divine Providence," wouldn't the common denominator be "God"? It makes sense to me.
      
      It looks like you are arguing whether Kirk is right or wrong. I'm talking about the chain of reasoning used to make his claim. It works. Your points disagree but they don't disprove.
      
      Here's a semantics argument: I say 'founded on Christian religion' carries a different meaning than 'founded on Christian principles.' One says built on, the other says built by.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Willowarborposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         "Relative to the variety of terms, "Nature’s God", "Creator," Supreme Judge of the World", and "Divine Providence," wouldn't the common denominator be "God"? It makes sense to me.
         
         But who's God? Which God?
         
         Was it  a deliberate rhetorical and philosophical choice. By using a variety of phrases, the writers appealed to a broad range of religious and philosophical viewpoints of the time...avoiding a narrow sectarian definition?
         
         "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God"for me  reflects Enlightenment deist beliefs.   
         
         Yes, Protestant Christianity was the dominant religious culture in the American colonies, but there certainly was not religious uniformity or tolerance. 
         
         And Kirk?  He's a biblicist...often twisting verse to fit a vision of Christian nationalism but missing the foundational teachings of Christ.

         replyreport
         1. 86

            GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            I'll borrow Charlie's answer to the 'Which God?" question.
            
            For this discussion, which god isn't the point—yet, it is that it is one god, monotheism. The claim is that in colonial times Western cultures were monothistic, so which god could have several answers. That sounds like the gist of your first question.
            
            If that works for you, then the use of multiple names could indicate a choice of gods, an effort of inclusion (your point), not the specificity of "Christianity." But that still doesn't negate his point, because if the montheist point works for you, then the next step is the logic of which god.
            
            With no sarcasm, history shows clearly which was the predominant god in the colonies during our Founding.
            
            As an aside, simply a note, I don't see "laws of nature" or "Nature's god" as related to either 'enlightenment' or deism.
            
            GA

            replyreport
3. 85

   Sharlee01posted 5 weeks ago

   GA, Just my view
   
   I think Charlie is making a very solid point here, and what I appreciate most is that it’s not just an appeal to faith but to logic and historical influence. When we talk about America being founded on Christian principles, it doesn’t require one to prove the divine; it’s about recognizing how biblical concepts shaped moral and legal frameworks that carried over into Western law and eventually into the founding of our nation.
   
   Take the example of Moses and the tablets. Whether one views Moses as a historical figure or not is secondary; the real argument is that the Ten Commandments set forth principles that influenced the development of common law, like prohibitions against murder, theft, and bearing false witness. Those principles helped form the moral backbone of the societies from which our Founders drew inspiration.
   
   So, the strength of Kirk’s reasoning lies in showing that the Founders didn’t create ideas in a vacuum. They drew from centuries of Judeo-Christian moral thought, blended with Enlightenment ideals, to frame a system that valued order, justice, and liberty. You don’t have to be religious to acknowledge that those principles provided an essential foundation.
   
   Shar
   
   Really interesting topic....

   replyreport
   1. 86

      GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      My route is safer. Questioning logic and reason is easier and more neutral than questioning religion or religious beliefs.
      
      The reasoning and logic of his progression works for me. The sanctity of the scriptures ... maybe not so much, but I trust him on them. AI verified the correctness of the dominant and predominant parts, so the rest was just a hop n' skip.
      
      I think one can agree with Charlie Kirk on this one and still hold a strong 'separation of church and state' stance (he does a good clip on that phrase too). Admitting one does require denying the other.
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 81

         Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

         “I think one can agree with Charlie Kirk on this one and still hold a strong 'separation of church and state' stance (he does a good clip on that phrase too). Admitting one does require denying the other.”
         
         That thought is where I stand on this matter….

         replyreport
         1. 86

            GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            That was a surprise start to the day; you agreeing with Charlie Kirk on a religious issue. Or, are you just agreeing with the thought that both positions can exist in one opinion?
            
            GA

            replyreport
            1. 81

               Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

               No, I don’t agree with Charlie and his implication that his religious ideas should be our nations guiding priniciple,  but I do agree that both positions can exist in one opinion

               replyreport
               1. 86

                  GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Wait, you turned down the wrong street. My point wasn't about agreeing with his "implication" for 'now,' it was about his description of the cultural reality of the times — back then.
                  
                  I think you could agree with that, and still disagree with Kirk's ideology and his current views on religion and government. That's the 2-part opinion I meant.
                  
                  GA

                  replyreport
                  1. 81

                     Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                     I think you could agree with that, and still disagree with Kirk's ideology and his current views on religion and government. That's the 2-part opinion I meant.
                     
                     
                     I don’t know that I could agree with that. We all like to think that Christian foundation was involved here. I don’t believe that either, it is so much hype, so much boilerplate that we all have been taught to believe. Sans the technology associated with communications and transportation over the two and one half centuries, those people were no different than what they are today. Self-interest was the guiding principle for these people, not some sort of religious adherence. Religion always has been and still is an excellent cover to shroud that reality.

                     replyreport
                     1. 86

                        GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                        Well, there's the new Cred. Felt the heat didn't you? Got too close to agreeing with a Rightie didn't you? Out comes the girded loins and sharpened quill ... and the denial nonsense.
                        
                        You say you don't believe that Christianity hype. A big part of that hype are the claims that; the majority of the first colonies were founded as religious colonies — primarily Christian religions; the predominant religious belief at the time of the revolution and the Constitutional convention was Christianity; the primary declaration of belief of the large majority of signers and delegates was noted as Christianity.
                        
                        But you deny all those 'facts' because they don't fit your ideology. Or, can you prove they are false or alternative 'facts'?
                        
                        It seems wrong to deny those facts and still claim "We would all like to believe that a Christian foundation was involved." If that wasn't our impetus, then why should we want to believe it was?
                        
                        I'm not pushing religion; I think I'm just acknowledging what I see as reasonable conclusions drawn from historically available information reasonably presented.
                        
                        GA

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                           What heat? My response was cool. So, just because these men profess a Christianity based background does not mean that everyone else has to subscribe to it.
                           
                           Yeah and so what, we have our Jimmy Swaggerts and Jerry Falwells, who cares what they professed, do they walk the talk?
                           
                           Are you missing my point, GA? So, they say they are Christian based, doesn’t everybody?
                           
                           Ok, about the conclusions, what are you leading to here?
                           I know what they all SAID and PROFESSED, I don’t deny that they all claim to be Christians but again, I say, so what?

                           replyreport
                           1. 86

                              GA Andersonposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                              Whoo eeee, I didn't miss your point, you're the only one talking about it. You doubt the legitimacy of what they "profess.' That's the foundation of your support. You don't believe the historical record because it's just what is professed.
                              
                              Ya got me. I'm outta ammo. I can't lead to anything from here.
                              
                              GA

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                                 I doubt the legitimacy of what most “Christians” profess defines them, that was true in 1776 as it is today, in my humble opinion. The “Christian” part for far too many people is nothing more than a label.
                                 
                                 Yeah, better go, there is no place to abscond remaining.

                                 replyreport
                     2. 72

                        Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                        "We all like to think that Christian foundation was involved here. I don’t believe that either, it is so much hype, so much boilerplate that we all have been taught to believe." - Credence
                        
                        George Washington (1732–1799): Anglican/Episcopalian. Washington was a vestryman in his local Anglican church, but his writings suggest a reserved approach to religion, focusing on morality and providence over dogmatic theology.
                        
                        Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826): Deist with Unitarian leanings. Jefferson was skeptical of organized religion and traditional Christian doctrines like the Trinity. He created the "Jefferson Bible," editing the New Testament to focus on Jesus’s moral teachings, excluding miracles. He valued religious freedom and wrote Virginia’s Statute for Religious Freedom.
                        
                        John Adams (1735–1826): Unitarian. Raised in a Congregationalist (Puritan) family, Adams rejected orthodox Calvinism and embraced Unitarianism, denying the Trinity but valuing Christian ethics.
                        
                        Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790): Deist. Franklin was raised Presbyterian but adopted deism, believing in a creator who set the world in motion but did not intervene. He admired Christian morality, supported religious institutions for their social benefits, and occasionally attended Presbyterian services.
                        
                        Alexander Hamilton (1755–1804): Anglican/Episcopalian, later devout Christian. Early in life, Hamilton’s faith was nominal, but after personal tragedies, he became more devout, supporting Christian causes and attending church regularly.
                        
                        I think, without exception, those who founded the country were of Christian background of some sort... the concept of freedom of religion did not include anything beyond the Christian realm... anything else was likely considered pagan or heretical... including Islam.
                        
                        These men were the Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos of their days... with much more focus on the Spiritual and a lot less focus on Science being the norm for society back then... Jefferson and Franklin in particular had an engineer's mind for things.

                        replyreport
                        1. 81

                           Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                           People are known to profess a lot of things, Ken. That does not necessarily make it so.
                           
                           I tend to lean agnostic, because each of the men you mentioned had their own interpretation of religion and its place. It does not matter what their religious preferences were when so many try to make some sort of national template out of it. I don’t see one.
                           
                           The idea of freedom of religion was naturally never to assume that faiths outside the Judeo-Christian mold would ask for the same rights. Well, it does not stay the 18th century forever. freedom of religion is just that. Everyone should have the right to worship or not worship as they choose without the Government mandating the posting of clearly religious related placards particularly in public schools where attendance is compulsory.
                           
                           I still see self interest in these men as well as Musk and Bezos, using religion to conceal their real intent: self interest.

                           replyreport
                           1. 72

                              Ken Burgessposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                              Nothing I can disagree with there...
                              
                              I was never implying they were devout believers... merely that there origins were from a Christian background and the world they lived in was awash in that belief far more than it was directed by Science... or scientific facts.
                              
                              I believe the base of the argument was more aligned with... if it was a Christian based society... where all who were part of it agreed upon the (ten commandments) moral certainties which were then considered irrefutable... that was the foundation for the Laws and norms of society.
                              
                              When you no longer have a foundation of moral certainties which you agree to base your Laws and social norms on... you no longer have a functional Legal/Court/Justice system... you have instead a collapsing society... there are no certainties... no norms... no foundation.

                              replyreport
                              1. 81

                                 Credence2posted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

                                 Understood, morality can be based on many principles even secular ones. There are as many so called accurate interpretations of the scriptures as there are stars in the heavens. One interpretation is not necessarily better than the other. These are the truths that people need to discover to contemplate  and ultimately decide for themselves.

                                 replyreport