Having said that I'm glad that Okc softened it's policy concerning an employee's work space, I'd also say, concerning the last few posts relating to some Christians telling others whether and/or how they ought to celebrate the season, that there's nothing at all wrong with non-christians, athiests, anyone, enjoying the holiday season in any way that they deem proper, if they chose to at all. Among other things, perhaps amongst the most important from a non-religious perspective is that the season is a time for closeness and celebration of one's family, and that's not dependent on one being a Christian. Wikipedia notes that,


Christmas festivities often combine the commemoration of Jesus' birth with various cultural customs, many of which have been influenced by earlier winter festivals. Although nominally a Christian holiday, it is also observed as a cultural holiday by many non-Christians.
Especially in Europe. The Christians appropriated the holiday for their own purposes ... nothing at all wrong with that ... but a Christian isn't really entitled to to tell others how they should celebrate the season, in my opinion. A case could be made for the other way around.

OK, so now some Christians want to tell people that if you don't believe what they believe in, then you shouldn't get a day off?? Or that public policy should be dictated by a motto placed on our money starting in 1864??

Maybe Christians should just be thankful that the country has selected a Christian holiday as a national holiday, while the sacred days of many other religions go without such treatment. Christianity gets more special recognition, or, as one could easily argue, exceptions than any other religion in this country, yet it's not enough.

Whether one interprets the establishment clause as a separationist or accomodationist, Christianity if often the beneficiary from the governmental policies that run counter to any concept of separation of church and state. It would be just as hard to show that any other religion is accommodated as much or more than Christianity as it would be to show that a total separation exists.

While it would be hard to establish a de jure national religion due to the explicit instructions not to in the constitution, it is clear that the attempts to make Christianity the de facto national religion by some leaders has had the effect where today it is not enough that a Christian holiday is recognized as a federal holiday, some want the federal holiday to be limited only to Christians. This fails just about every test for just about every logical interpretation of establishment jurisprudence.

That's because our country was founded on Christianity. If the government is suppose to be neutral and all politically correct, quit calling it Christmas, quit celebrating it, and don't take a holiday for it. The very word Christmas (Christ- Mas, more of Christ), clearly refers to Christ, the one we celebrate his birth. All the "non-Christian" traditions that go with it probably wouldn't have become a holiday called Christmas. BDP, Halloween is an occultict holiday if you want to get down to the origin's of holiday, so pagans and wiccans have an official holiday as well. I seriously doubt our founding fathers intended this country to be so "politically correct" and divided as we are today.

All the "non-Christian" traditions that go with it probably wouldn't have become a holiday called Christmas.


You have to admit, it has all become so commercialized.. sometimes it feels like so much more of an obligation rather than a true desire to give.

When did Christmas become about obtaining the latest greatest must have toy as a way to celebrate the birth of Christ?

I'm guilty as charged .. at the end of the season, I don't even remember the original intent of the holiday anymore.

I think we all have been brainwashed ... buy, buy, buy... spend, spend, spend... I wonder if the three Kings had this in mind when they brought their gifts?

That's because our country was founded on Christianity.

Wrong.

Our country was founded on religious freedom, not on the principles of any particular religion...am I wrong in thinking this? We aren't a "religious state" here.

That's because our country was founded on Christianity. If the government is suppose to be neutral and all politically correct, quit calling it Christmas, quit celebrating it, and don't take a holiday for it. The very word Christmas (Christ- Mas, more of Christ), clearly refers to Christ, the one we celebrate his birth. All the "non-Christian" traditions that go with it probably wouldn't have become a holiday called Christmas. BDP, Halloween is an occultict holiday if you want to get down to the origin's of holiday, so pagans and wiccans have an official holiday as well. I seriously doubt our founding fathers intended this country to be so "politically correct" and divided as we are today.

There's so much wrong with this post...I barely know where to start.

the very word christmas (christ- mas, more of christ), clearly refers to christ...
no. not exactly. christmas is a compound word essentially meaning christ's mass. the latin word from which mass is derived does not mean 'more.'


bdp, halloween is an occultict holiday if you want to get down to the origin's of holiday
halloween is no more pagan than christmas. christmas is a christian holiday superimposed over existing pagan holidays. in exactly the same way, halloween is a christian holiday superimposed over an existing pagan holiday. 'halloween' is basically a shortening of 'all hallows even' and is basically the day before 'all saint's day', a christian holiday. for that precise reason, i sincerely doubt any true pagan would refer to the holiday by the name 'halloween.'


wrong.
not exactly an airtight case you've presented here. while i'll concede that a few of our founding fathers weren't particularly religious, how many of them were buddhist? how many were muslim? hindu? wiccan? bottom line is that christianity played a pretty big role in shaping western culture. i do, however, agree that in principle the country was founded on religious freedom and definitely not founded as a religious state but just to bleat out 'wrong' definitely belies the complexity of our country's founding.

-M

not exactly an airtight case you've presented here. while i'll concede that a few of our founding fathers weren't particularly religious, how many of them were buddhist? how many were muslim? hindu? wiccan? bottom line is that christianity played a pretty big role in shaping western culture. i do, however, agree that in principle the country was founded on religious freedom and definitely not founded as a religious state but just to bleat out 'wrong' definitely belies the complexity of our country's founding.

-M

It's a very simple thing to say really. Quite a few of the most prominent founding fathers were deists who completely rejected the Christian hypothesis. For them to have accepted that we were a nation "founded upon" Christianity would have been hotly contested since that was not their religion.

Further, many writings of the founders, some unofficial, such as Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, and some official, such as the Treaty of Tripoli, signed by George Washington and approved by the Senate explicitly state that in no sense is the United States founded as a "Christian nation."

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
-- Thomas Jefferson

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."
-- John Adams


"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
-- Treaty of Tripoli


"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."

And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."
-- Thomas Paine


"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."
-- James Madison

(that should give you a taste)

The founding fathers' philosophy and world view was most certainly influenced by Christianity. Many of them were Christian (many were not). If I were to look for philosophical influences on the founding fathers, however, I'd probably look to the writings of Descartes and other enlightenment philosophers before I'd look to the Bible.

That said, I'm no atheist. I'm a Catholic. The thing is, when I hear that someone thinks the nation is founded on Christianity, I remember the fact that wars have been fought over determining exactly what "Christianity" meant. The founding fathers agreed -- even the Christian ones -- that religion and government should occupy distinct spheres within public life -- that one ought not interfere with the other.

So Merry Christmas, but don't think for one second that I think I have the right to use the machinery of government to shove my religion down anyone's throats -- and neither does anyone else.

now that i can agree with.

though it is contested whether or not john adams was a deist. while many of his beliefs were consistent with deism, he wasn't necearily a deist, per se. i mean, he's buried in a unitarian church for crying out loud.

also, i think that 'quite a few' deists is a bit of an exageration. i definitely agree that there were some, but you make it seem as if that was the prevailing school of thought among our founders. that really isn't the case.

but those are just nitpicking points... i do agree with what you've stated here. -M

Wow! I missed the last exit. This thread has taken so many different turns it''s hard to know where to get back on route.

I hope you all had a MERRY CHRISTMAS. I enjoyed my 4 day weekend which I have to make up by working all day this Saturday. Church was wonderful as usual and my family and friends are the best ever.

Should we now focus our attention on New Year's Eve and discuss what we should or shouldn't do for that??!!

Yes. Halloween is a satanic holiday. Remember? I think the rumor around work was that I was participating in a satanic ritual downtown that was marching straight to hell led by the devil himself Wayne Coyne. :evilsmile


Here is a link to help you educate yourselves on Halloween and Christmas.

The History of Christmas (http://www.history.com/minisites/christmas/)

The History of Halloween  The History Channel (http://www.history.com/minisites/halloween/)

now that i can agree with.

though it is contested whether or not john adams was a deist. while many of his beliefs were consistent with deism, he wasn't necearily a deist, per se. i mean, he's buried in a unitarian church for crying out loud.

Unitarians aren't Christian by definition -- or at least, they don't have to be. Unitarianism is a very catch-all religion. At its essence, unitarianism is sort of the converse of agnosticism. They all agree that there is a God, but agree to disagree as to what God is.


also, i think that 'quite a few' deists is a bit of an exageration. i definitely agree that there were some, but you make it seem as if that was the prevailing school of thought among our founders. that really isn't the case.

The mother of deism was the existential enlightenment school of thought. That sort of thinking -- that all men are created equal, that freedom and democracy are good aims for government, that religion should be apart from the state were all concepts coming from that school of thought. While many of the founding fathers were Christians, most, if not all had their attitudes shaped by that enlightenment mentality.

Yes, there were some individuals among (notably, many of the federalists) who were opposed to some, if not all of the radical reforms in the American government, but in the end, I think the Hamiltonians gave up a lot of ground to the anti-federalists (Jefferson, etc.) We do have a Bill of Rights after all... something those federalists felt was unnecessary.

unitarians aren't christian by definition
totally true and i would never dream of suggesting otherwise. deists and unitarians are not necessarily the same beast, however. adams himself rejected many of the major tenets of mainstream christianity, but i think (and i may be wrong) that he was primarily christian in background and religious practice.


the mother of deism was the existential enlightenment school of thought. exactly. deism is a product of enlightenment era thinking, not vice versa. the fact that the enlightenment influenced the form and function of our government does not suggest that 'quite a few' of our founding fathers espoused the deist philosophy.

-M

I wish the militant types on both sides would just grow up. The same people filing a lawsuit now are the first to complain when a Buddhist, Muslim, or Jew starts expressing themselves in the same way. Talk about having no empathy and not being able to put yourself in someone else's shoes. Here's an idea, let's all just live and let live and stop this nonsense.

My father forwarded me an interesting commentary from the December 21st Wall Street Journal. Perhaps it will satisfy the extremists on both sides of the issue, especially those fundamentalists who now say "It's our holiday, you shouldn't reap its advantages if you don't believe in it the same way we do? (wait, isn't that the same as their standard "my way or it's wrong approach to everything else?"

I couldn't find the exact article online (I have a scanned paper version), but a blogger posted it to his site, which you can find here (http://theempiricistsredoubt.blogspot.com/2007/12/history-of-xmas-from-wall-street.html). Scroll down past the opening paragraph to the story "History of Xmas."

All I have to say is "Happy Saturnalia!" (albeit a day late)

That's because our country was founded on Christianity.

Man, you have to really stretch to come up with that. In addition to the unofficial documents and official documents composed during our founders tenure that jbrown sited, just look at the actual documents that created the nation and its laws. NO WHERE does it state that the United States was founded on Christianity and just about every mention of the word God or religion in the founding documents is within the context of limiting religion's role in civil governance. Here's an analysis of every mention of religion or god, real or imagined, in the founding documents:

A Big Fuss Over Nothing (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/bigfuss.htm)

It would be interesting to see what interpretational gymnastics are used to come to the conclusion that these documents even suggest that our country was founded on Christianity. Even if one concedes that our founders were Christians, then these documents actually show a great deal of intent to minimize the influence of religion on government. I have no idea why so many are bent on disrespecting that.


Halloween is an occultict holiday if you want to get down to the origin's of holiday, so pagans and wiccans have an official holiday as well.

Since when is Halloween a federal holiday... and how many people do you know get Halloween off in the private sector?

Here's a list of 2007 federal Holidays:

2007 Federal Holidays (http://www.opm.gov/Operating_Status_Schedules/fedhol/2007.asp)

Exactly ONE is a religious holiday. Can you guess which religion gets a national holiday?

OK, so let's just say THANK YOU for making this exception, rather than whining that it's just not good enough or that everyone who isn't Christian shouldn't benefit from the exception as well.

And before we get into pagan holidays, you might want to do some research on the pagan origins of rituals and insignia that accompany Christian holidays, especially Christmas and Easter.

Now, does any of this demean, devalue, or defame Christianity or Christians in any way. Of course not. It’s simply a case against theocratic rule in America. Christianity and religion are alive and strong in America today, not in spite of instructions of our founders to limit religion in governance, but precisely because of it. I am in no way offended by Christianity and especially not its core principles. But I do get offended when it is suggested that people other than Christians are somehow less than complete Americans and should not be afforded all rights, privileges, and opportunities provided by the government because of their religion or lack thereof.

Unitarians aren't Christian by definition -- or at least, they don't have to be. Unitarianism is a very catch-all religion. At its essence, unitarianism is sort of the converse of agnosticism. They all agree that there is a God, but agree to disagree as to what God is.



Not exactly so, Midtowner - I was raised as a Unitarian and still consider myself "associated", though not active.

From the UUA website (http://www.uua.org/visitors/beliefswithin/index.shtml):


Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religion that encompasses many faith traditions. Unitarian Universalists include people who identify as Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Pagans, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, and others. As there is no official Unitarian Universalist creed, Unitarian Universalists are free to search for truth on many paths.

To quote the Rev. Marta Flanagan, "We uphold the free search for truth. We will not be bound by a statement of belief. We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed. We say ours is a non-creedal religion. Ours is a free faith."

Although we uphold shared principles, individual Unitarian Universalists have varied beliefs about everything from scripture to rituals to God.


I prefer the term they use - all-encompassing - rather than catch-all. Definitely more of a live and let live, as long as the respect for another's right to believe or not is mutual.

Thanks for the clarification.

Our country was founded on religious freedom, not on the principles of any particular religion...am I wrong in thinking this? We aren't a "religious state" here.

Can you provide examples of our founding forefathers that were Buddhist, Hindu, Muslim or Atheist? Almost all founding forefathers can be traced to Christianity.

Almost all founding forefathers can be traced to Christianity.

Which proves nothing.

Not that it has anything to do with the price of tea in China......BUT -

"Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Some of the 1787 delegates had no affiliation. The others were Protestants except for three Roman Catholics, C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons. Among the Protestants Constitutional Convention delegates, 28 were Episcopalian, 8 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch Reformed, and 2 were Methodists. Many of the more prominent Founding Fathers were vocal about their opposition to organized religion or anti-clerical, such as Jefferson. Some of them often related their anti-organized church leanings in their speeches and correspondence, including George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson (who created the "Jefferson's Bible"), Benjamin Franklin, Ethan Allen, and Thomas Paine. However, a few of the more notable founders, such as Patrick Henry, were strong proponents of traditional religion. Several of the Founding Fathers considered themselves to be deists or held beliefs very similar to that of traditional Deists, including Jefferson, Paine and Ethan Allen.
Notwithstanding the spectrum of beliefs held by the Founding Fathers, most viewed religion in a favorable light. This is noted through their statements in speeches and correspondences in which they describe its role in molding "national morality" and securing the rule of law (George Washington), its check on human "wickedness" (Benjamin Franklin), and its preservation of a free government such as America (John Adams). Regardless, the division of church and state was always emphasized by the founding fathers. "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," states the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. This document was ratified by Congress without much debate or contention and stands today as a reminder of the founding fathers' intentions.[10]

Although not a religion, Freemasonry was represented in John Blair, Benjamin Franklin, James Mchenry, George Washington, Abraham Baldwin, Gunning Bedford, William Blount, David Brearly, Daniel Carroll, Jonathan Dayton, Rufus King, John Langdon, George Read, Roger Sherman, James Madison, Robert Morris, William Paterson, and Charles Pinckney."

-
Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Founding_Fathers_of_the_United_States)

Without researching the above even a bit, #1, it's a wiki article, and #2, it seems to state a lot of which is opinion regarding some of the founders' favorable views towards religion.

The author of that edit might very well conclude that Marx favored religion when he declared it to be the "Opiate of the masses."

Without researching the above even a bit, #1, it's a wiki article, and #2, it seems to state a lot of which is opinion regarding some of the founders' favorable views towards religion.

The author of that edit might very well conclude that Marx favored religion when he declared it to be the "Opiate of the masses."

You must have missed this part.

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," states the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. This document was ratified by Congress without much debate or contention and stands today as a reminder of the founding fathers' intentions.

I think a treaty stating so pretty much covers it.

You must have missed this part.

"The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," states the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli. This document was ratified by Congress without much debate or contention and stands today as a reminder of the founding fathers' intentions.

I think a treaty stating so pretty much covers it.

Not so fast.

Not to take a stand, but more to stress what Midtowner stated - says who? As for the Treaty of Tripoli, I have seen that debunked so many times it's getting old. Debunked as in there was a lot more to it than how it's presented by those who want to make a point about founders wanting a complete separation of Church and State. As just one example, here's the other side of the story:
The Truth About The Treaty Of Tripoli (http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=125)
But then again, are their sources reliable? I don't know and didn't really do anything but see a lot of footnotes and such. At any rate, I'm with Midtowner, the issue is a lot more complicated than it looks (as legislation and treaties still are today) and you have to trust the sourcing and do some serious research - Wikipedia is far from trustworthy.

I think a treaty stating so pretty much covers it.

That and the fact that our actual founding document, the Constitution of the United States, has no mention of being founded on Christianity. In fact, you get two direct mentions of religion:

Article VI: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

AMENDMENT I :Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion

I would like it to be explained to me why a group of people who were trying to create a nation "founded on Christianity" would restrict their legislative body from ever establishing Christianity as a national religion and prohibit any of its officials from being required to be Christian. Really, these would be two very basic components of creating a nation based on religion. The reality is that if they wanted to found a Christian nation in their time, it probably would have been very easy to do so. The reality is that they were trying very hard NOT to do that. While there will always be a debate on how to balance that intention with preserving the freedom to express religious beliefs and practices, nothing could be clearer than their desire to escape theocracy, not create a new one.

For a slightly better treatment of the possibility of at least Jefferson's Deism, see WAS THOMAS JEFFERSON A DEIST? (http://www.sullivan-county.com/id3/jefferson_deist.htm) .

Anyway, while personally I tend to believe that the country was not founded on Christian principles. I am biased. I think that that it is telling that God appears in the Dec. Of Ind. and not the constitution. That said, I think the spreading of the word "god" in the early days of the cold war would cause many people to think that our country has always been that way. How many of us remember the 1930s? Can we really tell how much our interpretation of the founders' intent was changed in an attempt to distance us from the godless communists.


As an atheists, but not a militant one, I can tell you that certain religious events in the workplace, even voluntary ones can make me feel excluded. Its not that I wish I could have my own atheist holiday, but rather that when a large majority of people engage in a work-sponsored activity, including the higher ups, it can create the perception that those who do not subscribe to that thinking may not be held in the same regard. Personally, I don't think that's cool in a government workplace.

While I agree that views of history can be biased, more facts and articles tend to point out that our country was not founded on the Christianity we believe in today. The treaty, the declaration, and the constitution all show freedom from religion. Now as far as beliefs - from what I have studied I believe this freedom meant a freedom to worship God in a way your own conscious and spirit chooses to worship him. Freemasonry. If you are familiar with the history of Freemasonry you would know it's place during these times in England and Scotland. The first masonic lodge in the United States was established in 1731 in Pennsylvania. Thomas Jefferson and George Washington we know were members of this lodge. Freemasonry is not based upon religion but encourages it's members to be faithful and devoted to their own religious beliefs. Religion during this time was nothing like the religion we have today or the manner in which we worship.

Why this has to be an atheistic view is beyond me. It is a historical view to me. I certainly worship God and live my life according the the Bible. That has nothing to do with the history of the United States in my mind.

the treaty, the declaration, and the constitution all show freedom from religion.
i haven't read the treaty of tripoli for myself, but it's now on my 'to do' list.

if by 'the declaration' you mean the declaration of independence, it's scope does not cover the relationship between church and state.

whether or not the united states constitution shows freedom from religion is a matter of debate. all the constitution states is that 'congress shall enact no law concerning the establishment of religion.' rather than establishing freedom from religion, i'd say that the words establish freedom of religion... that there is no 'official' religion of the united states.

if the framer's intent was to make government entirely void of religious practice, it would surprise me that it has been customary to open congress with a (christian) prayer from nearly it's beginning... obviously this prayer didn't seem like an excessive religious entanglement to many of the very people who ratified the constitution... that in no way suggests that we are exclusively a 'christian' nation, but it does seem to contradict this 'freedom from religion' notion.

-M

1620 - mayflower landed
1774 - first prayer in congress
1789 - congress was in session on the first declared christmas holiday

A lot can change in 154 years don't you think? That in no way proves to me that this country was founded on Christianity. It was adapted and we grew and evolved just like we do now.

And seriously. What exactly are you trying to prove with this nonsense point of our nation being founded on Christianity? Let's just hypothetically say you are right. Now what? What does that mean? We should allow religion in the work place - especially ones in governing positions because they had a prayer back then? Do you think we should allow all religions - or just the Christian ones?

I mean let's face it, we have a LOT more people here now than in the 16 and 1700's which means a lot more diversity and a lot of variations on religion and celebrations of such.

If we are going to base it upon what this country was so called founded upon, then why not use that as an argument for everything else. Slavery, thievery, the depression of women, racism etc. - all were included in the history of our founding forefathers.

that in no way suggests that we are exclusively a 'christian' nation
kmf, you might want to read before commenting.

i was addressing your claim that the united states has always supported freedom from religion. the evidence you've provided is faulty and the examples i've shown demonstrate that.

the mayflower is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. our context is the frame of mind of those who authored our nation's constitution. you claimed that these people supported 'freedom from religion.' i've demonstrated that their actions show otherwise. you might want to start there.

but... if you need someone to make your argument for you... the route you should have taken was the fact that the supreme court currently supports the 'freedom from religion' interpretation of the constitution. regardless of our history it is the judicial branch's current interpretation that counts.

-M

Sorry m - I should have used quotes because that was directed at metro since he started the whole founding fathers bit. I actually don't find your arguments to be biased or without knowledge and agree with most of what you are stating.

So I will excuse your demeaning and arrogant tone with me... this time ... :wink:

kmf,
oh... well... that explains a lot. since you mentioned prayer in congress, i was sure you were addressing my response... my bad... sorry for the defensive tone!

-M

This thread has gotten me thinking about the subject at hand and I've been reading quite a bit today. I just thought I would toss a few things into the discussion.

If we look at history, we know that prior to settlement in the Americas that England required its subjects to be of the Anglican faith. The King of England was called the "defender of the faith" and was said to be appointed to the throne by God. At various points in English history anyone wishing to be of a non-Anglican faith was considered a heretic and an enemy of the King... you can guess what the punishment was (source: various *.edu websites as well as dusty old books).

In 1624 the law of Virgina required all whites to be members of the Anglican church. Any office holder had to be Anglican (source: history.org). At this point there was still a strong tie to the church of England.

Virginians basically tolerated the various non-Christian religions of the Indians and the slaves, but not a lot. Occasionally forced conversion was attempted but then later abandoned. Eventually the whites just ignored these religions.

Just prior to all of this The Enlightenment occurred in Europe. The Enlightenment was the period where people began favoring logic and science as the best means for providing reason and government. It was accepted by some, and deemed heretical by others.

Enlightened humanism was an outflow of this. This isn't "humanism" in the sense that it is thought of today... this was more of a sense of wonder and reverence for God and his awesome creation of humanity and all of its wondrous abilities (e.g. science, art, music, etc.). "Enlightened Christianity" emerged, which was a sect that believed in heaven there were no physical bodies and all the feelings, emotions, and human relationships formed while alive were unimportant in the afterlife. Deism branched off of this somewhere along the way.

The Reformation was occurring. Protestant groups were forming, and splintering, and splintering.

From the 1600s through the 1700s Protestants in England considered Catholicism to literally be the work of satan, and Catholics thought the same of the Protestants.

By the late 1600s Baptist preachers were being rounded-up in Virginia and thrown in jail for preachings against the ideals of the Anglican church. This infuriated James Maddison, who became a strong supporter of the concept of the separation of church and government (source: history.org).

Pilgrims and Puritans (note: these are NOT the same denomination) began splintering and splintering again in Virginia and elsewhere. Many of the sects believed that a strong tie with the church of England should continue, while others were strongly opposed to this. Some sects were very "live and let live" and kept to themselves, while others were much more aggressive.

There was a lot of religious diversity by this point in America. It is a little subjective to the extent. From one standpoint, we have lots of denominations or at least far offshoots of Christianity. But from another standpoint, as viewed by these early Americans, many believed that any denomination but their own was essentially a completely different religion, or perhaps even satanic.

Unitarianism begins spreading in the new world as well especially during the 1700s. Traveling to pretty much any downtown in old America you will find very old Unitarian churches as evidence of this.

Pietism, Deism, Quakerism, Dissenters, Roman Catholisism, etc. all begin spreading.

There is a lot of diversity by the early/mid-1700s in America. Some scholars believe that America never suffered the religious wars that England did because there was just so much diversity.

James Maddison (previously mentioned) and Thomas Jefferson (who in his writings did not believe in the Nicean Creed source: history.org) begin lobbying for the separation of Church and State. Many of the founding fathers of the US were strongly influenced by the Enlightenment and believed that above all else humans had free will. Jefferson introduced a bill in Virginia to grant religious freedom in 1779. It was too radical at the time and languished throughout the war. Patrick Henry and other early Americans pushed for "general assessment," meaning they wanted to be able to send tax money to any church leader of their choice, as opposed to separation and also as opposed to having an official American church. Maddison lambasted this view in his "Memorial and Remonstrance," saying that religion could never properly become a matter of law.

To paraphrase Madison: 'A government that could favor all Christian faiths today could revert to favoring but one tomorrow.' Eventually Jefferson and Maddison won the argument and Jefferson's bill was passed into law in 1786. A lot of this is of course the back-story for what eventually ends up in our US Constitution.



So what do I think all of this means? I think there has been a lot of disagreement from the very beginning on what religion's role in our government should be. I think the separation of church and state ideals eventually won out, as is evident above and in our own Constitution. I think even so there were many early on and even today that didn't and don't agree with this. I think that early on the extent of accepted diversity really applied to Christian denominations (who often viewed other denominations as non-Christian), sects, and offshoots, as well as the Enlightened, Unitarians, and others were mostly just ignored. I think as time has gone on this has been clarified to apply to all faiths.

I don't think that our founding fathers intended for us to be a non-religious nation. I think people sometimes take the concept of 'separation of church and state' too far in this respect. I think they fully intended our law and operation of our government to be based on knowledge, the concepts of science, and reason. I don't think they would want us to abridge or support any religion in any way.

Oh and I think the Treaty of Tripoli was clearly trying to echo this, basically saying 'hey we're a free country, we don't endorse or deny any religion as far as the government is concerned.' I think it is clear they were trying to say that unlike England the US isn't planning on starting any religious wars. I think people take this way too far and try to bend it into something it wasn't intended to mean, just like people bend the concept of the founding fathers take on religon.

So I guess this very long post is just a restatement of my much shorter earlier post: just live and let live people. Stop trying to ban things and stop trying to cram stuff down other people's throats.

Very well said Dismayed.