The Unites States is not a Christain Nation

Rebuttal: The 13 Colonies First, I refer to the heading of this debate “The Unites States is not a Christian Nation.” The title does it state, founded upon, or built on a foundation of. We are discussing our system of government. Rebuttals pertaining to the original colonies possessing religious constitutions are moot. It is known that the founding fathers wished not to maintain this structure of government due to the problems it had caused (ref. R2).As signatories of the Constitution these individuals by consensuses agreed to the contents therein. They made their positions known on the separation of church and state. John Adams felt the concept of a deity was absurd. In defense of the Constitution he believed its contents expressed the folly of superstition and hypocrisy. Those employed in government could not say they had exchanges with god; a government not based on miracles or enigma [5]. Benjamin Franklin: “The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history….. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses [5].Thomas Jefferson: “Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law” [5].Rebuttal: Early AmericaCorrect, there were versions of the Constitution that were written about, circulated and promoted by those involved. The development of the First Amendment was a result of concerned feedback (ref. R2).Sir, you have not analyzed the Jefferson quote or the bill you cite, “Establishing Religious Freedom Bill” (ref. R2). The quote protectects citizens' rights to practice the religion of their choice; and is against who believe differently having to support a church not of his choosing. The bill nullifies state sanctioned or state (tax) supported churches. The point you make does not negate my assertion but, supports it; a secular government. You second quote asserts my point again, “thus building a wall of separation between Church and state.” Whether Jefferson borrowed some words from Roger Williams is a non sequitur because, what one person states is not the same in context of another. The author source you cited (#4, #2 inactive) is Tim Greenwood of Tim Greenwood Ministries; he is not a scholar, academic or authority on American History. His article makes several contentious claims. I have respect for people of faith but, hold no regard for convoluted story telling. After the Constitution’s ratification, several ministers were angered that neither God nor Christianity was mentioned. Reverend John M. Mason of NY professed that God would be angry. Reverend Samuel Austin announced that the Constitution “is entirely disconnected from Christianity this one capital defect will lead inevitably to its destruction.” Reverend D. X. Junkin penned, “The Constitution is negatively atheistical, for no God is appealed to at all” [3]. Would such dissent have occurred if the Constitution stated to the contrary? An example on our government represented to foreign powers was a treaty between the US and Tripoli 1797, Article 11 states: “As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion ..[5]. Rebuttal: SC RulingsRunkel v. Winemiller, 1799This case was heard in the Maryland SC, by Samuel Chase, prior to his appointment to Federal Court. In his statement of establishment of the Christian religion, he was merely stating Christianity was a part of US life during the period (8). Samuel Chase was up for impeachment in 1807.The People v. Ruggles, 1811 This was a malicious slander case against Ruggles who stated “"Jesus Christ was a bastard, and his mother must be a whore;" (disrespectful, riot inducing comments even by today’s standards) where the court ruled, although the Constitution prohibited the establishments of a national religion, it did not forbid the courts from ruling on religious cases. Ruggles was found guilty of public indecency, inciting public discord; he infringed on the public’s enjoyment of their liberty of conscience. Considering the religious tenor of the time, Ruggles’ statement was akin to screaming racial slurs in a shopping mall today (9). Updegraph v. The Commonwealth, 1824This case ruled against Updegraph under contra bonos mores; indecent or mischievous consideration. An obligation or engagement prejudicial to the feelings of a third party; or offensive to decency or morality; or which has a tendency to mischievous or pernicious consequences, is void (10). Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 1892; A judgement involved the Alien Contract Labor Act of 1885, which it made it illegal for employers to pay for alien migration to the US for the purpose of labor. The migrating Clergyman was providing intellectual labor rather than physical, Holy Trinity won due to the “spirit” of the law, inferring manual labor. Justice Scalia on numerous occasions stated the ruling derided the statues original intent. Justice Kennedy viewed the judgment was based on unathoritative literature and “spirit of the law” reasoning as an unsound practice for the judiciary (11). Most of the court cases presented by you are those protecting the freedom to practice religion. The rulings do not contradict the Constitution’s ban on establishing a national religion. They do not infer or declare the nation is Christian; though at times, recognizes it as being the popular faith. There is a distinction. It's understandable that assumptions can be made by reading incomplete snippets of rulings that Christianity is the “law” of the land. Due to cognitive bias, lack of law scholarship, along with old English language interpretation, the error can be easily made. One must note each case premise and review the legal analysis to fully understand on what basis these decisions were made. The internet and some publications are rife with misunderstanding and misinterpretation due to either lack of academic honesty or historical expertise. At times, essays are written in a manner tailored to sway opinion in favor of an organization or a groups’ particular agenda. Media in all forms has this propensity, an assessment on their veracity must be made. Due to character limits and repetitiveness that would be inflicted upon the reader, I will not continue with commentary on the remaining cases you presented. Similar misinterpretations of a non-academic nature are present. I'd be happy to provide reputable legal analysis on those outstanding upon request, either in comments or PM. In conclusion, no precedent has been established by law or by my valued opponent that establishes that the US is a Christian Nation. 1. http://atheism.about.com...2. http://www.nobeliefs.com...3. http://www.alternet.org...4. http://www.mountvernon.org...5. http://www.earlyamerica.com...6. http://freethought.mbdojo.com...7. http://www.addictinginfo.org...8. http://churchvstate.blogspot.com...9. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu...10. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...11. http://scholarship.law.wm.edu...