There are two basic schools of thought regarding what it means to be American. The first holds that the US is a product of the Enlightenment, and ought to be governed in accordance with the precepts of that movement. The second holds that the US is a product of Christianity, and ought to be governed with the precepts of that particular movement. The first school of thought tends to focus on the Bill of Rights; the second tends to dwell on the Ten Commandments, at least until it becomes inconvenient to do so.
The question of what the Founding Fathers intended is debatable, if only in the sense that everything is debatable, which is to say that, like so many other things, it is often the subject of debate. But there is no legitimate debate, as the Founding Fathers have already
weighed in, and they would certainly know.
Now, this is not to say that one cannot found a nation on Christianity. After all, it's been done before. The Byzantine Empire, for instance, was the first major political entity to be created by Christians, for Christians, and in general accordance with Christian theology, incomplete though it was at the time.
It all started with a man named Constantine. He was contesting with his brother, Maxentius, over who would rule all the Roman Empire. Constantine tried waging a PR war with Maxentius by claiming that Apollo spoke to him one night to tell him what a great guy he thought he was. Constantine hoped this would give him that oft-sought after "favor of the gods" street cred. In 312, the two brothers came to a reasonable solution to their dispute - the two would assemble their respective legions, meet outside of Rome, and then attempt to kill each other. Constantine failed to bring enough rollers to the rumble, and was vastly outnumbered.
As he would later recount, Constantine was just sitting there, praying to the pagan gods for victory before the battle when he happened to glance at the sun, which he was in the habit of worshiping at the time. Then he noticed a cross superimposed upon the sun, and he heard the words
"In Hic Signo Vinces", which roughly translates to "Use the force, Luke," and much less roughly to "In this sign you will conquer." Inspired and apparently literal-minded, Constantine ordered all his soldiers to paint crosses on their shields. Then, of course, they won the battle. After all, they had painted crosses on their shields.
(Incidentally, hundreds of years later, Christian combatants were still painting crosses on their shields when fighting other Christians who had likewise painted crosses on their shields. Suddenly, the cross-on-the-shield trick only worked half the time.)
Constantine then converted to Christianity, which was a good thing for Christianity, since he was now the ruler of a reunited Roman Empire. However, in shaping a Christian Byzantine Empire, Constantine must have missed a few things. For, after all, if the democratic ideals of the US are derived from the application of the Christian religion, it would only seem to follow that the application of the Christian religion would lead to Americanesque democratic values. Oddly enough, this didn't seem to be the case among the Byzantines. You may notice, for instance, that Constantine forgot to create a process on which his predecessor could be elected, which may be why the transfer of executive power in the Byzantine Empire was much more spirited than it generally is in the US.
Altogether, 29 Byzantine emperors ended up relinquishing power as a result of being blinded, poisoned, drowned, tortured, starved, maimed, bludgeoned, strangled, decapitated, or some combination thereof, generally by Christians who really, really wanted to be Emperor. And each time this happened, it was widely presumed that the victor had succeeded because God had wanted him to. The Byzantines were people of faith.
Now, there's a very simple explanation for all these Byzantine shenanigans: Christianity in and of itself does not lead to democracy, which is why, in the 1500 years of organized Christianity's history, no democracy ever arose in the Christian world. And why would it? Nothing in the New Testament could possibly be interpreted as any sort of endorsement for democracy. Nor is there any mention of the
Republic of Israel in the Old Testament, not even of the
People's Republic of Israel. There is, however, a
Kingdom of Israel, as well as instructions on how badly one may beat one's slaves without facing punishment (the answer, by the way, is very badly).
It was not until the 18th century, in the wake of the Enlightenment, that a small contingent of mostly non-Christian political leaders broke off from a Christian monarchy in order to establish the world's first modern constitutional republic, which, coincidentally enough, would also operate under the first officially non-religious governmental framework in the recorded history of mankind.
Comments (11)
Like the humor....
The founders of this country were revolutionary, brilliant. They were mostly diests which if you ask me is Atheist. Sure there was a God but he was like a clockmaker and went on his merry way and didn't interact in the world. A God, Free from Theism...which is what America is. Free from the chains of Theism.
When people say this is a Christian nation....I get offeded. This is an Atheistic (in that is is free from Theism) nation and America is one of the greatest accomplishments man has ever accomplished. Christians want to take the credit for something they DO NOT deserve. Even today they try and destroy what Jefferson, Adams, and Franklin helped build. They goal is to destroy America as we know it and go back to the days of the Byzantines.
They are a terrible danger....religion is the biggest threat to mankind.
Uno Mas.
Christian don't have the right to Call America a Christian Country. It was founded by Deists (which is an old fashioned way of saying Atheist).
America is an Atheistic nation...Greatest accomplishment the world has ever seen. Christians wish to destroy it, bring us back to the Byzantine era. They despise America and wish to destroy it. They cannot have it both ways. They offend me.
This is an issue that many, more Mainline, Christians are concerned about as well - by that I mean we're weary of the Christian Right's position of power politics. In my view, it's contrary to the message of Christ to enforce religious values on people. It seems to me that "Constantinian" Christianity forgets one of the main components of the teachings of Jesus - humility and service to others. That is, Jesus didn't spread a moral agenda that is to be enforced on others. He preached a message of self-sacrifice and of selfless love.
I cannot see how enforcing my views upon another is consistent with that message.
""In Hic Signo Vinces", which roughly translates to "Use the force, Luke,"
I almost shit myself laughing.
Everytime someone says that this is a Christian Nation, it makes me wanna slap them. Hard. But I dont, because us Atheists usually draw our views from a general compassion for others no matter how stupid and deluded they are.
That's what makes our President so scary. Because of his religious views, he believes he's doing the right thing. Fuckin' loon he is.
Your profile pic is much better :)
Although, with it'd probably be Newt Gingrich or some other equally fun character.
In many ways, a Bush assassination would be the greatest gift a fringe liberal could give to the Republicans in 2008 (and beyond), as well as Bush's legacy. It would catalyze a huge amount of Bush/neoconservative sympathizing, and the media would really soften their critical assessment of his glaring flaws as a president/person and his otherwise unforgivable and inexcusable failures while in office. It would be very similar with what happened to Reagan. After it came to light that he wasn't insane, but had a degenerative neurological disorder, his public opinion shot up far beyond what it ever was during or immediately after his presidency (for any significant amount of time). The Republicans were able to architect a massive PR campaign that essentially allowed them to rewrite history and convinced hordes of people who didn't live through the Reagan presidency, or forgot what it was like, that he was a much better, more competent president and person than he actually was in reality (Iran-contra was arguably one of the 3 biggest military blunders in American history and much worse than the War in Iraq in its current form, yet nobody ever talks about it).
Plus, Bush isn't the brains of, or a particularly important cog in, the neoconservative movement. One of the beautiful things about the Republican party is that they don't put their power players in positions where they get much media attention, or can be easily prosecuted/removed from office for their wrong doings. As such, Bush is just the guy they propped out to facilitate achieving an agenda that they carefully constructed over 40 years ago--he's eniterly replacable. And yeah, Cheney would be much, much worse than Bush as president.
Nicely written post. I have to agree that the "use the force" bit was hilarious.
Mhalpin above comments: Jesus didn't spread a moral agenda that is to be enforced on others. -- He must be reading from a different book. Jesus left no doubt of the consequences of disbelief in more than one occassion. In other words, he did offer (somewhat subtle) threats to those who disobeyed/disbelieved. Who wants to go cherry-picking? I think I'll pass.
Besides, most of the condemnations that Jesus uses are against oppressive religious leaders whom he calls "Sons of Hell."
In many ways, a Bush assassination would be the greatest gift a fringe liberal could give to the Republicans in 2008 (and beyond), as well as Bush's legacy. It would catalyze a huge amount of Bush/neoconservative sympathizing, and the media would really soften their critical assessment of his glaring flaws as a president/person and his otherwise unforgivable and inexcusable failures while in office. It would be very similar with what happened to Reagan. After it came to light that he wasn't insane, but had a degenerative neurological disorder, his public opinion shot up far beyond what it ever was during or immediately after his presidency (for any significant amount of time). The Republicans were able to architect a massive PR campaign that essentially allowed them to rewrite history and convinced hordes of people who didn't live through the Reagan presidency, or forgot what it was like, that he was a much better, more competent president and person than he actually was in reality (Iran-contra was arguably one of the 3 biggest military blunders in American history and much worse than the War in Iraq in its current form, yet nobody ever talks about it).
Plus, Bush isn't the brains of, or a particularly important cog in, the neoconservative movement. One of the beautiful things about the Republican party is that they don't put their power players in positions where they get much media attention, or can be easily prosecuted/removed from office for their wrong doings. As such, Bush is just the guy they propped out to facilitate achieving an agenda that they carefully constructed over 40 years ago--he's eniterly replacable. And yeah, Cheney would be much, much worse than Bush as president."
Indeed, it was meant more as an off topic attempt at humor, which I apparently failed. Ah well, such is life. ^_^