Thursday, November 18, 2010
a Christian nation
In the beginning, in Massachusetts, freedom of religion meant that you were free from the Church of England and the Catholic Church. In return what you had to do was whatever the local church leaders and the local political leaders wanted you to do. To make this easier for you, the two groups were one and the same. By and by, freedom of religion came to include all sorts of different “religions” and, quite profoundly, it came to mean freedom FROM the government as well: “Congress shall make no law …”. Baptists, Methodists, Quakers were included and finally even Catholics and Jews. To hear some folks tell it you would think that that was the end of it. Now I know almost all of us are ready to tolerate Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhist, Confucians, Hindus and atheists. But we do expect them to understand that this is a Christian nation. Now, of course, that expression is part of the problem. What does it mean to be a “Christian nation”? If it means that Christianity is the most common religion in the country, then we are a Christian nation. But that is not what a lot of folks mean when they say “Christian nation”. They believe that there is strong legal connection between Christianity and the government of the country. Now have a little empathy. Imagine what it is like for them when they first encounter someone who doubts this. To demonstrate their view they get a word copy of the Constitution and search for “Bible” and get back the message: “Word has finished searching the document. The search item was not found.” Then they try commandment, Jesus, and Christ. Finally they might go for god with a little g. Each time the message is the same. At this point the rational person reconsiders his belief about what it means to say that this country is a “Christian nation”.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You point out that to some, the phrase "Christian nation" means that Christianity is the most prominent religion. To others, it means a strong legal connection between Christianity and government (the fact that Christmas is a legal holiday probably contributes to this idea, as you point out in your other post from Nov 18).
ReplyDeleteBut most people I know who speak of the U.S. as a Christian nation mean something in between, as they would assert that the *guiding principles* of our founders and of our founding documents are Christian. That's a weaker tie whose implications are unclear to me...
You are right. You might say our founders (if not the documents themselves) were heavily influenced by Christianity. That means Christianity was dominant in our past and pertinent in our present. But that doesn't mean that it controls our future. I like the statement: "Our children will be as wise as we are and will establish in the fulness of time those things not yet ripe for establishment." --Thomas Jefferson to John Tyler, 1810.
ReplyDeleteThe Treaty of Tripoli, brought before the senate toward the end of Washington's second term in office, approved unanimously by the senate, signed by John Adams in the early months of his presidency and published in full in the newspapers of Philadelphia and New York without apparent controversy, casts some doubt that the nation considered itself a "Christian nation" in its earliest years.
ReplyDeleteIt is not clear which version of "Christian Nation" Michael is referring to.
ReplyDeleteThe pertinent point being: Art. 11. of the treaty:
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 tranquility, 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.
There is room for some interpretation of that treaty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli#cite_note-2
But even the most extreme version seems to be consistent with the original post.
To clarify, your statement "Christianity was dominant in our past and pertinent in our present" implies a decreased emphasis on the role of Christianity in defining the connection between our government and the prevailing religious faith of our citizens.
ReplyDeleteOne has only to imagine what the chances would be for that treaty to make it through the present congress, let alone the one that takes its place in January, to recognize that there is a heightened sensitivity to "wall of separation" issues at present as compared to the atmosphere that apparently prevailed when the Tripoli treaty was signed without controversy.
It seems the shift has been toward a more dominant role of Christianity in the present as compared to the time of the signing of the treaty.