The United States Is A Christian Nation

Primary Concession of Con: Con has shrugged of my state constitution argument with the idea that my thesis equates “nation” or the “United States’’ to the federal government. Let me set this straight, I have made no declaration in any round. In fact, this would contradict my own beliefs, as I affirm the separation of Church and State on a federal level (see my Brewer quote). However, the states do retain this right and have exercised it from the beginning. What I have meant from the very beginning by Christian Nation is this: that all levels of government have been influenced by Christianity; the Declaration of Independence for the general philosophy of American government; the state constitutions for the state level. On this point alone, Con has not fulfilled his burden and has lost the debate. Hitchslapping Con: Con, in response to my Declaration argument, says that I have “offered no reason to believe that the change in diction from "God," to "Creator" is not intentional and demonstrates that Jefferson wanted the final version to be more inclusive.” Neither have I given reason that the change from “God” to “Creator” was not to demonstrate that Jefferson wanted the final version to be more inclusive of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Claims that are given without evidence, will be ignored without evidence. As with most of Con’s arguments, he has given absolutely no proof that Jefferson wanted to be more inclusive of religions when writing the Declaration, all he has given is the possibility. So, the question remains: What did Jefferson mean by “Creator”? Historians are faced with questions like these all the time. What did the Founder’s mean by the “no establishment” clause? To fully understand the true intention, the courts and historians look towards the writings of the Founders. For the First Amendment, we often turn to a very clear letter by Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist association, in which the intentions of the separation of Church and State are authoritatively made clear. Let’s turn back to the Declaration. In Jefferson’s view, where do our rights come from? To get a better idea, I did what historians do and looked at other documents that Jefferson authored on the same subject. In the same way as the Danbury Baptist letter, documents like A Summary View of The Rights of British America give us a clear understanding on Jefferson’s views on the rights of man as a gift from God. I have proved what Jefferson believed, now it’s Con’s turn to prove that Jefferson changed his beliefs on the subject, and wanted to include multiple religions with the use of “Creator”. Let’s see how Con has handled this: In response, Con gives measly, irrelevant quotes on Jefferson’s personal views on the miracles and deity of Christ (including the “Jefferson Bible”). Notice how irrelevant quotes have nothing to do with the content of the Declaration of Independence, the origin of rights, or even the existence of God. In Defense of My Quotes... Again: Con says I have ignored the context of my Adams quote. He asserted that, “Adams uses the phrase ‘principles of Christianity’ to refer to the principles that united the Founders, not the principles that the Founders used to create the nation.” Obviously the quoted paragraph that I gave in R3 disproves this interpretation. I have re-read the entire letter, just to make Con happy, and noticed that the general principles of Christianity are both the principles that united the Founders and the principles that the Founders used to “[achieve] Independence”. I invite Con to tell us how I have distorted the context. Con says that my Washington quote is not “confirming the US's Christianity, but rather deals with Thanksgiving and is explaining why it is import to celebrate the holiday.” His unspoken conclusion: Therefore when Washington says "it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour;”, it means we all ought to eat a lot of turkey. I suppose I’ll take this seriously. Con says this quote explains “why we celebrate [Thanksgiving]” Correct! We celebrate Thanksgiving because it is the duty of nations to acknowledge the providence, benefits, of the Almighty God and plead for His protection and favor. Since Washington was acting as President of the United States when he made this proclamation, his affirmation of the importance of the “Almighty God” affects the general American philosophy of government. A Tale of Two Treaties: How Con Destroys His Only Positive Proof Con has articulated his argument in syllogism form in the comments. I will use this as the base of my argument here. Using Con’s own logic in his syllogism, the Treaty of Tripoli doesn’t apply anymore because it invokes the “year the Hegira”, an important religious year for Muslims, chock full of religious implications and is exclusively Islamic: P1: If no reason is given why a part of a document should be considered to be indicative of our values when another part of the document is clearly not reflective of our values, then the argument concerning the first part has no standing. P2: No reason was given as to why article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli should be considered to be indicative of our values when the religious implication of the exclusive Islamic month of Hegira is clearly not reflective of our values. C: Therefore, the argument concerning the article 11 of the Treaty has no standing. To parallel Con again: “[Con] presents no reason to believe that the [eleventh] part of the Treaty referring to the [supposed secularism of American government] bear[s] any more significance upon our values than does the [invocation of the religious month of Hegira]. Con's response would be that Adams upheld every clause of the treaty. My response is that U.S. Congress "approve[d], [ratified], and confirm[ed]" every clause of the Treaty of Paris [1]. The Treaty of Tripoli: 1.) The government mentioned in article eleven of the treaty is the Federal government (note the capital "G" in the original document); therefore, the treaty is merely affirming that the Federal government is not founded on the Christian religion in any sense. While the founders affirmed the influence of Christianity (established in my “Duty of Nations” argument), they also created a constitutional wall for the Federal government against the establishment of religion. Therefore, the affirmation that the federal government of the United States was not in any sense established on the Christian religion, is not a repudiation of the fact that America was influenced by the Christian religion. Influence and establishment are two different things. In conclusion, the Treaty of Tripoli is merely an interesting factoid and remains completely benign to my thesis; as I am not upholding the theory that the Federal government has established the Christian religion above all others, thus it is a Christian Nation. 2.) It would be absurd to suggest that President Adams (under whom the treaty was ratified in 1797) would have endorsed any provision which repudiated the influence of Christianity on America (I refer you back to my Adams quote in R3). In fact, while discussing the Barbary conflict with Jefferson, Adams declared: The policy of Christendom has made cowards of all their sailors before the standard of Mahomet. It would be heroical and glorious in us to restore courage to ours. [2] 3.) There was more than just one treaty with the Barbary powers. The 1786 Treaty of Morocco, which Adams signed and endorsed, invokes "God" a total of 4 times. In fact it ends with this: “this Treaty shall continue in full Force, with the help of God for Fifty Years.” This gives more evidence that the Treaty of Tripoli does not deny Christian influence, only Christian establishment on the Federal level. Sources in comments