Is America a Christian Nation?

Wow! What a great sermon. It gives me hope and resolve that no matter how screwed up things may get our founding fathers were Christian and held those principles that got them through that very dark period in our history.

The gentleman is absolutely correct when he says that today we are to believe that our the founding of our country was not based on Christianity, if you listen or read those proclamations from so called documentary or newspapers and books published today.

I for one would find what was said by George Washington about one not being a patriot if we were to subvert those great pillars of religion and morality from our political prosperity. Many of our countrymen are doing exactly that to the detriment of the country. They are not patriots.

Really wonderful presentation. I have seen this guy on Christian stations. Thankful for his knowledge and that he shares it. Thanks for posting this. I took notes – ha! Have a great day. Donna

What a great presentation! I would love to see more. I have tried to keep informed on history but much of this was new to me. It is sad to think that there is a whole generation that has no idea or will probably ever know this important background of our founding fathers to fall back on when they will be in charge of this country. Thanks for making this available.

I'm glad you mentioned that. If you go to Intouch.org's bookstore: https://www.intouchbookstore.org/index.html
Then if you do a title search for “America” it'll be the one by David Barton.

I'm guessing a copyright violation although that is but a guess. See the answer to me above.

well, could you re-embed this video, pls? seems it is no longer available
thx

These are some strange points, that I think are a bit out of context:
[* Out of the 56 that signed the Declaration of Independence, 29 had seminary degrees.]
By seminary degrees, he means “Doctor of Divinity” which was a much more common degree back then – given from the likes of Harvard, Yale, etc that were originally established as “religious” universities. Only one of the signers of the DoI was a practicing minister. Some of the others were either what might be considered Unitarians, or even non-practicing Christians. Also, in sense, so what if they got a Doctor of Divinity. Today the most popular doctorate is a doctor of philosophy. It doesn't make all those people philosophers. Finally, if we're really talking about the “founding” of out government, bringing up the DoI is really somewhat irrelevant, as that document had nothing directly to do with the subsequent founding of our nation

[* The first public school law in America in 1647 – The Old Deluder Satan Act – They believed that people should be able to read the Bible (which Satan didn’t want), so they wanted to teach children to read and write. For the next 320 years, the Bible was part of public education.]

Same problem as above. Hes citing something that predates the founding of our government — this one being so far in the past that it's completely irrelevant to the US government. 1647?

[* Sept 6, 1774 – First session of the first Congress – they opened with Prayer, and that prayer lasted up to 3 hours.]

And they still pray in congress to this day. But guess what? Not everyone in congress is a Christian. So, this one seems to be rather pointless as well.

[* Congress printed the first Bible in the english language in the United States in 1782. They printed 20,000 copies.]

Again, so what? This does not make out country an official “Christian Nation”.

Some of the signers of our constitution were deists. Does that make us a deist nation? No. They wrote into our constitution a separation of church and state, specifically because they did not want the government controlling or guiding religion.

You will NEVER change the FACTS that AMERICA’S CONSTITUTION was written with Judeo-Christian beliefs and principles as a guide.

This is the most incorrect video I have seen. While it is not true that we were founded as a Christian nation, even if we grant that America was founded in a Christian tradition, this does not make it permissible to have religious leaders, mandatory church reading, or any religious establishment as part of our government. Our constitution protects against that, and our secularism is what makes America beautiful.

Interestingly, this man's take on Christianity is drastically different from the view of our founding fathers. The sheepish people that agree with this speech know nothing of history, know nothing of philosophy or religious history.

It is unfortunate that some people in power want to force the rules of their imaginary friend onto the lives and practices of others.

My Controller? I used to be a Catholic. I do not have a controller. Nice try though. I would assume, however, that since you are defending the concept of God, you have a much more well financed controller.

I can't wait until the idea of religion as an important part of life fades into nothingness.

I don't understand. You have no real defense for your position. I indeed have watched the video. I am using my knowledge of history and facts to tell you that despite any suggestion that America was founded by a few christians, does not at all mean that we are a christian nation that needs to respect or create laws in favor of christianity.

This nation is great because of its ability to separate god from politics. We are no more a “christian nation” than we are a “white nation” or a “protestant nation.” Luckily, our laws are set up so that my rights are not infringed upon by your actions.

I am open to discussion, I just request that you actually put forth some comment with real content, not just pathetic childish drivel.

I liked that!

Many people think that religion is the answer. The problem with Christianity or most other western religions is that the participants of these religion don't really believe the religion. Christianity, A love religion is not being practiced in the US in that way. In the last 10 years we pursed war, greed in Wall Street and the medical industry, and business in general. We have an embargo against Iran but according to a NY Times article last weekend, we sell more to the Iranians thru third Parties then any other country. The problem is not religion. Its reality. We have lost sight of it. As long as money is the most important thing it will not change.

“The majority of the founding fathers were deist. “

That sentence is outrageously and demonstrably incorrect.

The rest of the comment is therefore not worth my time or anybody else's to read.

I would argue that money is not a bad thing at all. Money is a completely empty gauge as to the morality of a decision. It's purely a meter for worth. Perhaps we use this money to support hospitals in Chile or aid for Haiti. Money is a decent meter for happiness; we all pursue happiness as our final goal. Sometimes we are concerned about how people go about getting their happiness- these can be valid arguments, but it doesn't seem like money is a useful concept in an ethical discussion.

That being said, I agree whole heartedly with the first part of your post. It appears as if all members of religion are not concerned with the content of the religion, except for how it differentiates them from others.

There were many influences to the Constitution, and the creation of our government. Most are non-Judeo-Christian:
• Democracy: Greece, Rome, Parliament of England, Thomas Paine (English, Deist)
• Three Branches of Government: Montesquieu (France), England
• Constitutional Government: England (Magna Carta, etc)
• Bill of Rights: England (Bill of Rights of 1689)
• Republicanism: Rome, Machiavelli (Italy), John Locke (England)

Democracy, and individual rights (which supersede laws) are antithetical to the Bible. If our government were based on Biblical models, we would be killing people with stones for minor transgressions, butchering children of other tribes, making decisions by lot, etc. Most importantly, we would have theocracy and monarchy, both of which our founding fathers rejected with revulsion.

Most of those trace back to Mosaic law and practice, so it is probably not right to say “Christian” when “Judeo-Christian” is probably more correct.

The video introduces facts, authorities, and evidence. Do you have any to refute them?

Can somebody point me to any document anywhere written before, say, 1800 that uses the phrase “separation of church and state”?

I find a number that use some form of “th Congress shall make no law regarding” but nothing what ever referring to the States.

The “separation of church and state” is how Thomas Jefferson and James Madison (and presumably their collaborators) described the intention of the First Amendment. (They would know more than anyone, wouldn't they?)
Madison (“Father of the Constitution”) was the fiercest proponent of a “total separation of the church from the state” in his words, and wanted to eliminate chaplains from Congress and the army and navy.
During the Adams/Jefferson Presidential race of 1800, Jefferson, a Deist, was labeled an atheist and a heathen. Federalists slandered him, and used religion as a political weapon, describing a future of debauchery if Jefferson won. Jefferson won because he stood more for separation of religion from politics than Adams, who stood more for governmental avocation (and political utilization) of Christianity. This separation was (and should be now) seen as as a safeguard against political interference with religion, and vice-versa.

OK, on your evidence, you have no idea how many “founding fathers” there were and only “know” that somebody told you there were a small number of them that had characteristics that suit the agenda assigned to you.

I see no hope of enlightnment here. I'm out.

I'm sorry, Daniel, my comments must have been misinterpreted. I am aware that the document's purpose is to define the powers strictly given to the federal government. Indeed, Jeffersons' suggestion to remove a state religion from VA was not due to hatred for a religion, but rather to open up the state to more diverse religious following. In any event, I am not directing any anger towards your specific religion (or any other, for that matter). I am just upset that certain individuals want to enforce a religion as a national policy. I believe this is something we can both agree is not intended.

My main line of argument, as well, was meant to suggest that “even if we assume all framers were devout protestants, that does not change one bit of how they envisioned this government.”

I apologize for any vague speech or confusion.

I would like to say now that anyone who subverts the truth to suit his own agenda is doing more harm than good. This includes many liberal writers, but also some religious conservatives like David Barton and Cleon Skausen.

David Barton has been caught using a number of false or unsubstantiated “quotes,” which he attributed to George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and others. After complaints, he eventually came clean about these, but he should never have been using them in the first place. He should not be considered an historian of any academic standard, for this and other reasons.

On repeated occasions, he has willfully distorted the history of separation of Church and State in the U.S.

Take the Aitken Bible, for instance. Barton wants us to believe that Congress intended to: 1) publish a Bible, 2) to give to public schools, 3) to instruct children in religion. This is an entirely false premise on all three points.

Robert Aitken was a struggling publisher, and published this Bible himself. He sought the endorsement of Congress as to its quality and accuracy. The U.S. had to import most of our books, including Bibles, from Europe, as we had an embarrassingly insufficient printing industry. The successful American printing of the Bible (and other books) was a testament to the health of American industry in general. As government authorization of a Bible's authenticity was an English tradition, Aitken thought this would be helpful to the sale of the book. His Bible was eventually passed on to a committee of congressional chaplains who attested to its accuracy. There was never any effort by Congress or any other arm of the U.S. government to implement the use of this Bible in public schools, and they never assisted in the publishing of the book. The phrase “a neat edition of the Holy Scriptures for the use of schools” are from a letter by Aitken, not Congress.

In stark contrast to this story, the Treaty of Tripoli was written during the Washington administration, signed by Adams, read aloud before the Senate, and passed Senate unanimously, and apparently without debate. Copies were given to every Senator. The treaty stated that “…the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…”

Said by Adams: “Now be it known, That I John Adams, President of the United States of America, having seen and considered the said Treaty do, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, accept, ratify, and confirm the same, and every clause and article thereof. And to the End that the said Treaty may be observed, and performed with good Faith on the part of the United States, I have ordered the premises to be made public; And I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all other citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfill the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof.”

As for using the Aitken story to change our perception of separation clause of the First Amendment, think about it. Besides the story being false (as it's presented by Barton) it happened before the First Amendment was conceived, therefore, before the wall was erected.

With all due respect, Larry, if “The 5,000 Year Leap” is written by the same Cleon Skausen who wrote “The Making of History” it will not top my reading list.

In that book, Skausen asserts that the true victims of slavery were the slave owners [seriously?], implies that families were not often split apart [this was routine], asserts that slave food was plentiful [malnourishment was common] and characterizes slave life as cheerful and seldom brutal. [Again, false.] — The Making of America, pages 731-732.