The United States is not a Christian nation.

I will organize my thoughts my numbering them as I read the first argument of Volk23, herein referred to simply as 'Con'. After rebutalling each of his arguments, I will then in turn expound on my own and offer evidence to support my claim in a manner which is clear, concise, and (most importantly) irrefutable. I will direct my appeals not to Volk23, but to you, the reader - it is your vote whose influence I seek. ===Rebuttals=== 1) My opponent first begins by stating it is 'categorically and empirically true' that the United States was founded upon Christian principles, backing his statement up with the claim that 'one nation, under God' could not be arbitrarily placed in the Declaration of Independence. While I agree, I also contend my opponent clearly does not understand what he's talking about. In fact, 'One Nation, Under God' does not appear in the Declaration of Independence at all, as much as Con would like to believe. Anywhere. The first mention of 'One Nation, Under God' was in 1954, when it was added to the Pledge of Allegiance under the Eisenhower administration after intensive lobbying by Christian clergy. This rather ignorant claim by Con certainly dispels any assumptions he makes in the first paragraph (he goes so far as to claim this signifies the divine rule of God himself, but as the claim he's making is based entirely on the bogus idea that 'under God' appears in the Declaration of Independence, we can safely dispel it until he can cite a source that isn't made up on the spot). 2) I will agree with the concept that many of the founding fathers were Deists, rather than Christians (Thomas Jefferson comes to mind immediately, Hamilton and Adams almost certainly were as well), I take issue with much of the rest of his statements, which continue to pervade throughout the rest of his writing, so I would like to take this opportunity to address it. First, I will contest that Deist principles are in no way similar to their Theist counterparts, as Con would like to believe. Deists, unlike Christians, believe (or believed, as Deism is all but extinct) that the universe was created by a Supreme being that left them alone. Unlike Christianity, which has their God making strict moral judgements on right and wrong, the Deist god does not interfere with human life. Indeed, the concept of an afterlife is rather vague. My opponent digresses (and in fact spends the majority of his argument) using a tactic called the 'transcendentality of morality', a doctrine proposed by Immanuel Kant, a philosopher he mentioned early in his writing. It is a fairly well-known theory arguing for the existence of a supreme Deity which Con has adapted for this argument. The argument goes as such: Moral facts ('rights and wrongs') exist, and they transcend all boundaries of society - murder, of course, is illegal in the entire civilized world. The best explanation for such phenomena, writes Kant, is religion. My opponent uses this argument to make several unsupported presuppositions, which I will detail on shortly. However, what's important to take away as you read my opponent's writing is this: A) My opponent fails to recognize the potential validity of other religions. Transcendentality of Morality is an interesting concept, but nowhere does it point to Christianity in particular, as my opponent continually references. In fact, the best that you can narrow it down to would be the general idea of a deity - this provides no more support to the idea that the United States is a Christian nation than if I were to say the United States is an Islamic nation or a Jewish nation. B) My opponent consistently confuses 'morality' with 'religion'. This becomes increasingly apparent by the end of his argument, and I will detail it further there. His arguments have devolved into 'Because morals exist universally, a God must be responsible. This God is the Christian God.'. He offers no support for why this God must be the Christian God, and seems to not even try - he readily accepts that many of the founding fathers were Deists and reject the notion of the Christian God. 3) My opponent states "Things like stealing, murder, lusting, and many of the major crimes that society regards as bad all stem from God's moral commands in the Bible. From a transcendental God comes transcendental principles." I could not disagree more. Stealing and murder are regarded as bad in the eyes of society not because God said so, but rather because the are universally unpleasant things. Nobody likes being the victim of theft and very few could say they would enjoy being the victim of an afternoon murder, therefore, society deems these illegal not because they happen to be in the Bible, but because society wouldn't like such things to happen to them regardless of which Holy book they appear in. Furthermore, this is a poor argument by my opponent to make a case for Christianity - such commandments of morality appear in almost every Religion and it's simply ignorant to assume that such a thing is based on ignorance. My opponent spends much of his time to argue that the United States is a nation that contains morals. I do not argue that point, nor did I ever attempt to argue that. My opponent then tries to presuppose that because Americans have morals, we are inherently being Christian. I will refute this to the bitter end. ===Further Arguments=== If you had any doubt in the strength of my argument before, I urge you to reconsider with a few brief pieces I have yet to touch on; a 'knock-out' blow to my opponent, if you will. Let's go back to what my opponent said to begin with; he contended that the United States was founded upon Christian principles, stating it is, again, 'historically and empirically true'. Let us ignore that my opponent then was delusional enough to believe the Declaration of Independence contained 'Under God' (which it doesn't) to support his argument and instead look for real historical documents that cite the contrary. Early on in the history of the United States a conflict developed between a group of pirate nations and the US Navy (the remnants of which, for the keen, can be found in the Marine Hymn in the verse 'To the Shores of Tripoli'). The dispute was settled in 1797 with a treaty called the Treaty of Tripoli, under the Presidency of George Washington. This treaty is quite remarkable for several reasons; One, it was authored under the presidency of George Washington; two, it was read in it's entirety aloud before the entire United States Senate, where it was unanimously approved; three, President John Adams (by the time it was signed Washington had since left office) signed it; four, well, maybe you should take a look closer... Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." My opponent then goes so far as to say that when the founding fathers decided 'oppression is bad' and 'we need laws' (as Con, ever eloquent, phrases it); such decisions were 'inherently Christian'. I appeal to you, voters, to reject such ridiculous notions. The hope to be free from oppression and the hope for laws is a moral issue, yes. However, it has absolutely no bearing at all on the status of the United States as a Christian nation, which we can decisively say it is not.