The Dangers of Secularism

You mean you think the US gov't was based on Xianity, but you would be wrong.If that fact is not clear enough in the writings of our nation's architects, nor the Constitution itself (check the Bill of Rights), there is a Treaty signed unanimously by the gov't shortly after our gov'ts creation which explicitly states we are not based on Xianity.As it stands, and has already been mentioned, the majority of our founders were deists and almost violently opposed to evangelicals and their dogma. If you want to advocate that our nation was founded on Xianity then it would have had to have been Deist Xianity and you are probably going to end up with more problems than under the secular gov't they actually devised.You should be glad it is secular.This message has been edited by holmes, 05-31-2005 05:33 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I've been meaning to ask you a couple of questions:1. Do you know the title of this treaty?2. In your view, what is the answer you would give if someone asked you, "Why were the founders so concerned with the idea of keeping government distinct from religion?"This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-10-2005 10:50 AM

1. The Treaty of Tripoli. Especially read Article 11: 2. I will not presume to answer for Holmes.

1) It was the called the 'Treaty of peace and friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of Barbary', or the 'Treaty of Tripoli'. The document was finalized in 1797.To be absolutely fair, here is a link which argues that the treaty does not mean the founders meant the nation was not Xian. You will note however that it does show that they do mean the gov't is not.2) In my view, the founders were concerned with separating religion from state because of their knowledge of recent events which highlighted the tragedy of having those institutions linked. Also, this was part of the enlightenment era and reason was regaining credibility. Part of that movement was thought toward building gov'ts based on reason to solve earthly problems, rather than spiritual ones. Here is a link to a page of quotes from the founding fathers regarding some of their views of religion and the mix of religion and state. You will also find the Treaty of Tripoli mentioned in there.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

.Recent events?I was thinking they were turned off by the religiosity of their fellow countrymen: "The Great Awakening," and subsequent religious revivals. Fear of fanatics.

Recent by their standards, yes. I'm not sure I want to get into a big discussion, or have to do the "legwork" of rounding up history citations. There were plenty of events which underscored ties between gov't and state as creating a bastardization of one or the other or more usually both. This could be true to some degree but not something I want to go out on a limb to posit. Certainly not a few of them had serious disagreements with evangelicals and zealots, but I don't think that was the primary concern when creating a gov't.Remember these guys were into Locke and other gov't theorists. Such people were not overly concerned in discussing temporal issues such as evangelists, rather than rational explorations of earthly problems like how to secure freedom and keep gov'ts at bay (regardless of secular or religious).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Me neither!I'm having enough problems with my "Nazi project."Thanks.

Sure. If you look at the early colonial history you'll find major seperations based on religious perspectives between the different colonies. Virginia was strongly Presbyterian, Pennsylvania staunchly Roman Catholic, New England a haunt of Puritanism, Maryland nominally Roman Catholic but with conditions in the Charter guaranteeing religious freedom, and pockets of some more fanatical groups like the Quakers and Menonites scattered throughout.The Framers could look around and see that finding any compromise that included religion would be impossible and so the issue had to be specifically excluded before any common document could get approved.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

That's right. I had heard that before but forgot about it.

We can thank our first President (who was not George Washington by the way) for much of that. He was the prime mover in effecting compromise and gets far too little credit for his efforts.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion