The United States is a Christian Nation

The Purpose of My Round Two Argument As Pro, my purpose in this debate is to establish the historicity of Christian influence on the United States' federal government, state government, and important founding documents. Notice that I'm not arguing for a Theocracy, or the loss of the First Amendment, or anything like that; rather, I am arguing that Christianity has had a powerful influence on the molding, shaping of this country.In round two, I established that Christianity moulded the moulders. That is to say, that Christianity influenced and defined the motivations and the foundation on which integral Fouding Fathers built our nation upon. The Founding Fathers saw the basic tenets of Christianity as inspiration for the great nation we see today. Thomas Jefferson, some call him the Father of the Nation, some call him the Father of Religious Freedom, said that religious freedom stems from the Hand of God, the Almighty; that our precious rights we Americans cherish so much are personally endowed by the Creator. John Adams stated that it was the general principles of Christianity that brought our Nation together, "on which the Fathers achieved Independence". Washington, acting as president, even went as far as saying that it is the "Duty of Nations" to thank the Christian God for His blessings and providence. In Defense of...In the first paragraph of Con's response he seems to concede three things:1. Jefferson is a Christian.2. Jefferson is writing integral founding documents with a "Christian bias".3. And that Jefferson believed God provided us with our rights.If Jefferson were writing integral founding documents with a Christian bias (documents like the Declaration of Independence, Bill for Religious Freedom, A Summary View of the Rights of British America), then by definition these documents are being influenced by Christianity -- which is what I'm arguing for! If Jeferson believed that God provided us with our rights, then we may reasonably deduce that the "Creator" in the Declaration, written in Jefferson's Christian bias, is the same as God. Since The Declaration of Independence is the quintessential American Founding document and is the foundation of American government philosophy, from this alone the United States may be considered a Christian Nation.Con might say that "God" is vague -- that it might refer to one of the three main monotheistic "Gods". However, why would Jefferson, a Christian, reference Allah as God and the source of our rights? Or Yahweh? Did he reference all three at the same time? That too doesn't make sense since the three are logically exclusive, hence the distinguishment from eachother. In addition, Jefferson's Bill for Religious Freedom says, "from the plan of the holy author of our religion..." Why are "Holy author" and "religion" singular? If he wanted to be inclusive of the other monotheistic religions, shouldn't it be "Holy authors of our religions", or atleast "holy author of our religions"? But again, even if it was "holy author of our religions" that denotes a single source, author, of the three monotheistic religions. Something Christianity, Judiasm, and Islam would contest. Jefferson wasn't very inclusive in his writings. Though he fought for religious freedom, he wasn't afraid of recognizing the heavy influence Christianity had on foundational American philosophy (I refer you to the writings of Locke).Con might also say that these beliefs of Jefferson's were merely personal biases, nothing that represented the nation as a whole back then. Two major problems with that:1. Why would Jefferson make his personal biases the basis for documents that represented huge groups of people (in the case of the Declaration of Independence, an entire nation)?2. Why would people accept documents, supposedly littered with Jefferson's personal Christian biases, and sign onto the documents if the documents didn't truly represent them? As in the case of the Declaration of Independence, fifty-six members of the Continental Congress, all willing to fight tooth an nail for something that did not full represent them and their constituency, put quill to parchment.The Declaration Paralleled with a News Article?Con contends documents that contain uniquely Christian language (1) aren't necessarily "Christian" documents, (2) don't make the legal body the documents represent "Christian" (3), and it doesn't make the nation as a whole "Christian".Con's attempted parallel of foundational documents, like the Declaration, and a news article fails on multiple accounts:1. The whole, "if a news article contains Christian words, does it make it Christian?" thing is a war of words. I'm not arguing if documents, like the Declaration, are "Christian" enough. Rather, I'm looking for Christian influence. As I said in the opening round, America is most justly called a Christian nation because Christianity has so largely moulded its foundation.2. Con contends that a news article that contains "Christian" language doesn't make the newspaper "Christian". He's right, but he's dead wrong if he tries to apply this to the Declaration of Independence -- or any important founding document for that matter. A news article is to a newspaper as the Declaration is to the Continental Congress. A "Christian" article doesn't make a newspaper "Christian" because the newspaper publisher doesn't necessarly uphold the beliefs of its many authors. It might simply find these opinions caustic, quaint, or popular. What if, however, that newspaper signed at the bottom of the article: "And for the support of this Article, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor." That article is to the newspaper as the Declaration is to the Continental Congress. Point taken?3. The town that reads a Christian article doesn't necessarily make that town "Christian". Did this town rally behind this "Christian article" and fight another nation? Did they bind themselves to that article in spilt blood and the forge of brotherhood? Didn't think so. The Colonists did this. They rallied behind the Declaration of Independence, and died for it. It represents them more than anything in the world -- it's what defined their generation and generations to come. A news article cannot possibly parralel that. On Con's Argument"[Jefferson's] opinions reflect life at his own time, not how it has developed and changed over the centuries."No. Jefferson, Washington, Adams, Madison, Wilson, and all the rest of the Founders, don't take back-seat to the "melting pot". We, The United States of America, were forged in blood and brotherhood; our foundation, our philosophy, our principles, it's not something that simply "changes". Through our mistakes in the past, we adapt to the future: and the greatest mistake a nation can make is to forget itself and lose its identity. Jefferson's opinions, ideas, passions on government, human nature, and Christianity, may seem old-fashioned, but it's our identity and it represents the foundation for American government philosophy."... the 1st Amendment and the "Separation of Church and State" as written by Thomas Jefferson, guaranteed that the United States is not a nation of one single religion but a nation of religious freedom and a variety of different religions."First, Thomas Jefferson didn't write the first amendment, Madison did. And I agree that the first amendment and the "Separation of Church and State" (just a interpretation of the first amendment, not an actual law) guarentees, atleast on a Federal level, religious freedom; however, my argument doesn't really have to do with the existence of religious freedom. We're looking at the influence of Christianity -- how Christianity moulded America. It's fine and dandy that religious freedom exists, I support that, but until you elaborate on how this affects the Christian influence on the foundation of the United States, it has little to no weight on the discussion."A Christian nation would have openly stated that their religion is officially Christianity, something which Jefferson was opposed of ..."The United States, on the Federal level, cannot announce an official religion. Can the United States, on the Federal level, be influence by Christianity? Yes. Can states make Christianity an official religion? Yes, they have and arguably still can. However, "official religions" don't have to do with what I'm arguing about -- as I've said many, many, many times before.The Irony is...So Con brought up the doctrine of "Separation of Church and State", directly quoting Jefferson. Thomas Jefferson, Con, and I all agree the first amendment is a great thing, but Con is going a step farther and saying that the first amendment negates the influence of Christianity on America. The irony is somehow lost on him. Thomas Jefferson, a man who's opinion Con holds in esteem, actually cited the source of religious freedom as from the Almighty God:"Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion, who being Lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others..."So the doctrine that he cites to negate Christian influence is in fact saturated in Christian influence.Sources will be posted in comments.