Country was Founded on Christian Principles - Was it?

1. 86

   GA Andersonposted 7 hours 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 7 hours 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 hours 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 4 hours 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
3. 85

   Sharlee01posted 4 hours 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 3 hours 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 40 minutes 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