The United States was founded on Christianity

=Introduction=I have to give credit where it is due. My opponent provided an argument that I thought was unique and very well-sourced, especially when he doesn't even agree with the resolution. That being said, I do not believe his arguments refute my two contentions.=Refutation of Argument One=I do not disagree with the first points of my argument. Particularly, the ones that talk about the role Enlightenment values have in our democracy, and the fact that we an experiment in those values. However, I feel that when my opponent tries to make a connection between Christianity and the Enlightenment, the history disagrees.First, I wish to define what I consider Enlightenment to be. I believe the best quote comes from Dorinda Outram, Professor of History at Rochester University, when she says, 'Enlightenment was a desire for human affairs to be guided by rationality rather than by faith, superstition, or revelation; a belief in the power of human reason to change society and liberate the individual from the restraints of custom or arbitrary authority; all backed up by a world view increasingly validated by science rather than by religion or tradition.' [1] This definition completely destroys the contention that religion had anything to do with Enlightenment.Christianity could not have influenced Enlightenment. The principles that led to the underlying foundation of the US government (at least in theory) stemmed from the Enlightenment, which was anti-fundamentalist and emphasized secular governance by laws, not by men who claimed to derive authority from god. At the time, Christian Churches were using their power and teachings to enforce the feudalistic/monarchy-based social order, while the Enlightenment was questioning these orders. For this reason, I cannot understand why Christianity would have an influence on Enlightenment values.I would also like to address the similarity between Christianity and Enlightenment values that Pro points out. Pro points out that both feel there are objective meanings of morality, logic, rationality, and reason. However, this does not at all prove his case. Islam believes these are things are objective. Atheists believe these things are objective. By this logic, the United States must be a Christian, Muslim, and atheist nation!We must consider for a moment the idea that the colonies were a good basis for secular values. If this contention is true, then it is a great detriment to my position. However, I bring forward several facts about the colonies that disprove this idea.The colonies were not a good basis for secularism in the United States because they had religious law and state churches. In the year 1702, every single colony had some form of state church.[2] The majority of colonies had Test Acts for state offices, which required that person to swear that they believed in a certain religious faith.[3] These two facts alone stand against the idea the colonies were a framework for secularism, when the cast is the opposite. The states continued to defy secularism until the 14th amendment was ratified. [4]Considering his attacks on the story of Jesus Christ and the Bible, I see no reason why Thomas Paine would be a Christian Deist. This is something Pro must provide evidence for, not I.[1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...[3] http://tinyurl.com...[4] http://tinyurl.com...=Defense of Contention One=< The conflict the treaty mentions will not arise because, as the article states, the United States is not founded on Christianity. Therefore, it is impossible for it to have a way with a Muslim state on the grounds of religion. He is correct in stating that the treaty rebukes religion as a cause for war, but does not not address the point that religion is not a cause for war because the United States has no official religion.In 1786, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams met with the ambassador from Tripoli in London. They asked why American merchant ships were being attacked without provocation. The ambassador explained that Muslim pirates considered Americans to be infidels and they believed they simply had the right to plunder American ships.An infidel is one without faith. Therefore, the purpose of the treaty was to establish that the United States government was nuetral on religion, and did not believe or disbelieve in Islam. As a result of that, a war between the two based off the religion of the Barbary States could not be possible.< The treaty serves as both a moral statement and a diplomatic tool. The moral statement is that the United States was not founded on Christianity, and the diplomatic tool is that there cannot be a conflict between the two parties based on religion.< The rest of the argument is in regards to the severity and importance of ending the Barbary Wars, which have no bearing on the text of the treaty. I do not feel that the purpose of the treaty was to separate the United States from the crusades, because a simple lesson in history would have accomplished that goal. Furthermore, by dissociating themselves from European Christians and stating they were not founded on Christianity, doesn't that suggest something to you?< The text of the document is clear. 'The United States was in no sense founded on the Christian religion'. Despite what events were taking place at the time, the text is still there. Since the Supremacy Clause states that the treaties we enter are the absolute law of the land, then the US must have been religiously nuetral. [1][1] http://tinyurl.com...=Defending Contention Two=My opponent says I did not elaborate on the role Thomas Paine played in the revolution. The only argument I wish to make in pointing out Thomas Paine is that the man who mobilized popular opinion in favor of independence, and condensed the arguments for the common man to read and understand, was not a Christian. If his book was not published, we can argue that the revolution would have been much weaker--if occurring at all.=Additional Third Contention+The United States of America cannot be founded on Christianity, because its founding document separates church and state.'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.' [1]The Supreme Court supports my argument when they ruled in Everson v. Board of Education that:"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'" [2][1] http://tinyurl.com...[2] http://tinyurl.com...=Conclusion=I feel that I have satisfactorily refuted my opponents argument, defended my two contentions, and added a third contention to the debate.