The United States was founded on Christianity

:) Defense of Case. -->Con defined the Enlightenment well. I would however, note that while I do concede that there was some secular aspect, especially in the subjection of the divine to underlying principles, I will question if the Enlightenment was purely a "secular" or even unitary movement. In fact, my opponent's presentation of such ideals, and supposition that they are the principle ("This definition. .. Enlightenment") is a bit flawed: it gives "rise to the misleading impression that there was a coherent movement, project, school or thought which developed these ideas explicitly" and could be characterized only by them. In fact, as a period of intellectual discovery and exploration, the Enlightenment can rarely be subject to generalization, for not only were views of thinkers grouped alike different but many oscillated in their belief during their life [1]. Secondly, it rests on a dichotomy between "faith" and "reason" that can be proved false, as reason can easily be extended to defend faith and destroy it. Rationalism, an obvious mark of the Enlightenment, can be seen in previous Christian thought, with St. Thomas Aquinas providing, in attempt to show that reason was the very source of knowledge, discussed the transparency of cerain truths--the natural world as it opens to God [3]. Con's definition, especially challenged by emerging historical opinion of the conducive nature of the Enlightenment in terms of the plurality of positions and religion [2], can be simplified to only a study of human nature, the essence of the Enlightenment. An analysis of human nature can easily be extended to the other subjects of Enlightenment thinking: religion, an adoraton for education, discovery of the study of mind, study of laws, etc and so forth, especially in conjunction with the natural world that was emerging as a topic of focus in Enlightenment thinking; in no way, would religion not play a role, despite Con's assertion [1]. I will respond to Con's arguments on the similarity of values in the next round in fuller detail, as well as potential influences of Christianity on the Enlightenment. :)-->Con's discuson of the colonies' failure as a "good basis for secularism" is not a refutation of the fact that a period of intellectuality, the "American Enlightenment" where values of liberty, democracy, republicanism, equality, and so forth emerged in emphasis and culminated in the Declaration and Constitution [4]. Conditions that may have stifled the adoption of secularism did not prevent the adoption of such values with the growing resistance to colonial rule. -->I might not have made myself clear but I only mentioned Thomas Paine in reference as a case of deism, but not as Christian deism. ". .. .. .. .Unfortunately, at least for the progress of this debate, my opponent and I have decided to have this debate at a tie; I chose the wrong position and am straining myself (not in the literal sense of the world) to tie the arguably secular and modern world of the Enlightenment to Christianity. That, and the difficulty of arguing about the matter and so forth, makes the debate worthy of at least being stopped. It's only a bit unfortunate though since the debate, after shifting gears to "Is the Enlightenment influenced by Christianity, got more interesting, at least for me. :PBut remember votes, CON AND I have agreed to have this debate tied. I am offerring the incomplete argument as a special look for voters for what would have been my impending rebuttal. ;)