America was founded as an enlightened multicultural Nation

[gipper]

Dude, your understanding of separation of church and state is flawed.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

.

The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

no bing, you are wrong -

america was the place for multiculturalism's birth and has continued since that time to the present day ...

Wrong context. Here’s the correct context from an eyewitness.


One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other. Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Tocqueville gives this account of a court case in New York:
While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say. The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23rd, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms:

"The court of common pleas of Chester county (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no case in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief."

Our government ceased being good awhile ago. So, we aren’t great anymore.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

#1. We will start with the Puritans

The first group of “Mayflower” Christians to set foot on what was to become Massachusetts’s soil were separatists meaning they left the Church of England behind. Those separatists were eventually absorbed into the following groups of non-separatist Puritans who under Congregationalist Churches maintained a loyal relationship with the Church of England until the revolt against King Charles in 1776 was declared.

In no way should the early separatist Puritans be confused with the Revolutionary War Separatists. Many of the 1776 separatists were not Christian in a Puritan/Calvinistic sense at all. They were more philosophically aligned with the modern liberal mindset of the times when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

“So who, then, were the Puritans? While the Separatists believed that the only way to live according to Biblical precepts was to leave the Church of England entirely, the Puritans thought they could reform the church from within. Sometimes called non-separating Puritans, this less radical group shared a lot in common with the Separatists, particularly a form of worship and self-organization called “the congregational way.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/pilgrims-puritans-differences​

Well, I can agree with "enlightened." Too bad the leftist want to take us back to the dark ages

 

[ding]

Dude, your understanding of separation of church and state is flawed.

The establishment clause was written expressly to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the state had at the time of ratification. All of which were based upon Christianity. The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

.

The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

no bing, you are wrong -

america was the place for multiculturalism's birth and has continued since that time to the present day ...

Wrong context. Here’s the correct context from an eyewitness.


One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other. Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Tocqueville gives this account of a court case in New York:
While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say. The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23rd, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms:

"The court of common pleas of Chester county (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no case in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief."

Our government ceased being good awhile ago. So, we aren’t great anymore.

I believe it starts with the people and I agree with your assessment. We get the government we deserve.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#64 reply to #59

Keep in mind we've a timeline , 1500 to 1776 is a LONG time.

Well said and well written post. Thank You. The timeline you mentioned that ended in 1776, in one fell swoop does much to erode the Christian Nationalists attempts to distort the history of the founding of America.

I appreciate writers that can sum up an argument by effective and efficient use of language to a summation. And you don’t come across as anti-Christian when you do it.

Myself, I must try to laboriously take the Christian Nationalists down brick by brick. I enjoy doing it.

My background occupation-wise has been for forty years solely involved in the construction of water and wastewater treatment plants all around the country. It’s a 60 hour a week kind of job. I graduated from high school and went straight into the industry. I have no training as a scholar or historian. But I have learned how to sort facts from fiction quite well.

thank you again for posting, I think I’ve taken a few bricks out of the Christian Nationalists wall just about now.

The claim that some states having an oath of office and established churches is a weak argument. Because if one state such as Virgina was strong for freedom of religion and acceptable to multiculturalism then the Christian ‘nation’ concept falls flat. And by their admission there were a half a dozen similar states as well.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#65 reply to Post #6 the Tocqueville eyewitness reply to #5

. Wrong context. Here’s the correct context from an eyewitness.

One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

First of all Tocqueville was not an eyewitness to the founding.

However, be that as it may, what must be “the new state of things“ that Tocqueville was referring to when he wrote, “great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.”

Tocqueville was a French, Catholic, aristocrat, roaming about 1830s America who became impressed maybe Infatuated with the religiosity of evangelical Protestant Christians who were at their peak of a great awakening of Protestantism that occurred just about dead center between the successful Revolutionary War and the great Civil War that was yet to be.

You cited Tocqueville also saying, “I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart?”

That means we cannot accept Tocqueville as any kind of reliable pollster on religious adherents in America.

As a side note: During the actual founding of America, middle and lower class Americans from 1776 to 1801 were more interested in grabbing land than being good faithful Christians.

Revival at Cane Ridge | Christian History Magazine

• On a trip to Tennessee in 1794, Methodist bishop Francis Asbury wrote anxiously about frontier settlers, “When I reflect that not one in a hundred came here to get religion, but rather to get plenty of good land, I think it will be well if some or many do not eventually lose their souls.”

• Andrew Fulton, a Presbyterian missionary from Scotland, discovered in Nashville and in “all the newly formed towns in this western colony, there are few religious people.”

• The minutes of the frontier Transylvania Presbytery reveal deep concern about the “prevalence of vice & infidelity, the great apparent declension of true vital religion in too many places.”

• Rampant alcoholism and avaricious land-grabbing were matched by the increasing popularity of both universalism (the doctrine that all will be saved) and deism (the belief that God is uninvolved in the world).

• Methodist James Smith, traveling near Lexington in the autumn of 1795 feared that “the universalists, joining with the Deists, had given Christianity a deadly stab hereabouts.”

• Hyperbole, perhaps. Still, during the six years preceding 1800, the Methodist Church—most popular among the expanding middle and lower classes—declined in national membership from 67,643 to 61,351.

• In the 1790s the population of frontier Kentucky tripled, but the already meager Methodist membership decreased.
  
  
• Civil war following the Second Great Awakening: At the height of the war, delegations of concerned clergymen received high-profile audiences with the President; the National Reform Association moved an amendment to the Constitution to add formal recognition of Christianity to its preamble; the military chaplaincy was dramatically expanded as a major component of the U.S. armed forces; and “fully one-third of all soldiers in the field were praying men and members of some branch of the Christian Church,” and religious revivals in the armies converted between 5 and 10 percent of men in uniform.

• ALLEN GUELZO is a professor at Gettysburg College.

See above quotes:
At the turn of the century, testimony from Clergy that “not one in a hundred came here to get religion, but rather to get plenty of good land”...., Reliable Testimony
During the Civil War “fully one-third of all soldiers in the field were praying men and members of some branch of the Christian Church”

One third they say after the Great Protestant Awakening were Christians in the US Army.

So I don’t see much value in Tocqueville’s impressions about American founding Religion as it relates to this discussion.

Mostly because he was not a witness to the founding and because as a Catholic from France at that time when he witnessed Protestants practicing religion with enthusiasm and vitality voluntarily and fully detached from the state and the Pope, he could only compare it to the dead religion of his native France. Seeing a small percentage of the population practicing religion couid easily leave a false impression that it was much bigger and more important than it actually was.

He also didn’t associate with any of the actual founders who were Deists and not a Protestants attending tent revivals and charismatic churches.

Tocqueville is an extremely weak argument defending the almost absurd idea that America was founded as Protestant monoculture religion in 1776.

If you want not to be associated with Protestant Christian Nationalism then you need to abandon telling all of us that we must accept your Christian biased conclusion that America was founded as a Christian Nation. It was not.

 

[ding]

#65 reply to Post #6 the Tocqueville eyewitness reply to #5

. Wrong context. Here’s the correct context from an eyewitness.

One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

First of all Tocqueville was not an eyewitness to the founding.

However, be that as it may, what must be “the new state of things“ that Tocqueville was referring to when he wrote, “great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.”

Tocqueville was a French, Catholic, aristocrat, roaming about 1830s America who became impressed maybe Infatuated with the religiosity of evangelical Protestant Christians who were at their peak of a great awakening of Protestantism that occurred just about dead center between the successful Revolutionary War and the great Civil War that was yet to be.

You cited Tocqueville also saying, “I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart?”

That means we cannot accept Tocqueville as any kind of reliable pollster on religious adherents in America.

As a side note: During the actual founding of America, middle and lower class Americans from 1776 to 1801 were more interested in grabbing land than being good faithful Christians.

Revival at Cane Ridge | Christian History Magazine

• On a trip to Tennessee in 1794, Methodist bishop Francis Asbury wrote anxiously about frontier settlers, “When I reflect that not one in a hundred came here to get religion, but rather to get plenty of good land, I think it will be well if some or many do not eventually lose their souls.”

• Andrew Fulton, a Presbyterian missionary from Scotland, discovered in Nashville and in “all the newly formed towns in this western colony, there are few religious people.”

• The minutes of the frontier Transylvania Presbytery reveal deep concern about the “prevalence of vice & infidelity, the great apparent declension of true vital religion in too many places.”

• Rampant alcoholism and avaricious land-grabbing were matched by the increasing popularity of both universalism (the doctrine that all will be saved) and deism (the belief that God is uninvolved in the world).

• Methodist James Smith, traveling near Lexington in the autumn of 1795 feared that “the universalists, joining with the Deists, had given Christianity a deadly stab hereabouts.”

• Hyperbole, perhaps. Still, during the six years preceding 1800, the Methodist Church—most popular among the expanding middle and lower classes—declined in national membership from 67,643 to 61,351.

• In the 1790s the population of frontier Kentucky tripled, but the already meager Methodist membership decreased.
  
  
• Civil war following the Second Great Awakening: At the height of the war, delegations of concerned clergymen received high-profile audiences with the President; the National Reform Association moved an amendment to the Constitution to add formal recognition of Christianity to its preamble; the military chaplaincy was dramatically expanded as a major component of the U.S. armed forces; and “fully one-third of all soldiers in the field were praying men and members of some branch of the Christian Church,” and religious revivals in the armies converted between 5 and 10 percent of men in uniform.

• ALLEN GUELZO is a professor at Gettysburg College.

See above quotes:
At the turn of the century, testimony from Clergy that “not one in a hundred came here to get religion, but rather to get plenty of good land”...., Reliable Testimony
During the Civil War “fully one-third of all soldiers in the field were praying men and members of some branch of the Christian Church”

One third they say after the Great Protestant Awakening were Christians in the US Army.

So I don’t see much value in Tocqueville’s impressions about American founding Religion as it relates to this discussion.

Mostly because he was not a witness to the founding and because as a Catholic from France at that time when he witnessed Protestants practicing religion with enthusiasm and vitality voluntarily and fully detached from the state and the Pope, he could only compare it to the dead religion of his native France. Seeing a small percentage of the population practicing religion couid easily leave a false impression that it was much bigger and more important than it actually was.

He also didn’t associate with any of the actual founders who were Deists and not a Protestants attending tent revivals and charismatic churches.

Tocqueville is an extremely weak argument defending the almost absurd idea that America was founded as Protestant monoculture religion in 1776.

If you want not to be associated with Protestant Christian Nationalism then you need to abandon telling all of us that we must accept your Christian biased conclusion that America was founded as a Christian Nation. It was not.

I never said anyone came here for religion.

Tocqueville’s Democracy in America was standard reading in almost every major American university’s polisci class for a considerable period of time, and considering that Catholics were the minority and treated pretty harshly in colonial times his Catholicism makes him a great witness.

I think you need to face the reality that America was founded on Christian values and principles.

 

[ding]

Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia

Franklin T. Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of some of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 28 were Anglicans (i.e. Church of England; or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), 21 were other Protestants, and two were Roman Catholics (D. Carroll and Fitzsimons).[31] Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.[31]

A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians such as Thomas Jefferson,[32][33][34] who constructed the Jefferson Bible, and Benjamin Franklin.[35]

Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (John Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid "theistic rationalism".[36]

Many Founders deliberately avoided public discussion of their faith. Historian David L. Holmes uses evidence gleaned from letters, government documents, and second-hand accounts to identify their religious beliefs.[37]

31 Lambert, Franklin T. (2003). The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press (published 2006). ISBN 978-0691126029.

32 Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813. "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."

33Letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814. "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

34 "The Religion of Thomas Jefferson" Archived November 23, 2011, at the Wayback Machine Retrieved July 9, 2011

35 Quoted in The New England Currant (July 23, 1722), "Silence Dogood, No. 9; Corruptio optimi est pessima." "And it is a sad Observation, that when the People too late see their Error, yet the Clergy still persist in their Encomiums on the Hypocrite; and when he happens to die for the Good of his Country, without leaving behind him the Memory of one good Action, he shall be sure to have his Funeral Sermon stuff'd with Pious Expressions which he dropt at such a Time, and at such a Place, and on such an Occasion; than which nothing can be more prejudicial to the Interest of Religion, nor indeed to the Memory of the Person deceas'd. The Reason of this Blindness in the Clergy is, because they are honourably supported (as they ought to be) by their People, and see nor feel nothing of the Oppression which is obvious and burdensome to every one else."

36 Frazer, Gregg L. (2012). The Religious Beliefs of America's Founders: Reason, Revelation, and Revolution. University Press of Kansas. ISBN 978-0700620210.

37 David L. Holmes in The Faiths of the Founding Fathers (Oxford University Press, 2006)

 

[luchitociencia]

Why is so hard to understand something that is so simple?

The Pilgrims came to this continent because they refused the "official religion of the land": the Anglican Church.

When they came to the American continent, their idea was to separate the government from religion.

This is to say: No more "official" religion, but freedom for people to choose their own religion.

Then, people were free to become Anglican, Baptist, Pentecostal, Catholic, etc.

However, the understanding about "religion" was a kind of erroneous. It appears that for the early Americans, the only valid religion was the Judeo-Christian religion, because believing in the "Great Manitou" wasn't even considered as a valid religion, and was "discriminated".

The early American society was similar to the Roman when we talk about government. In Rome, the Emperor was elected solely by the high class society and some honorable people.

Every time a new "Caesar" was elected, the population just celebrated it but never voted in such an electoral process.

In the early United States, it was a similar scenario, the poor people like carpenters, laborers, also women, and slaves weren't able to vote in order to elect the first presidents.

It has been a long process in history for having a more mature democracy, but at its very beginning, electing leaders was a privilege solely for people of influence.

Then, in those early years the US as a multicultural nation was practically the same as any other nation ruled by kings and emperors. In reality, all nations have been multicultural since early societies because migration was a very common event, and was caused by several reasons.

And a rare phenomenon happened in the US: while in several nations all around the world the inclusion of minorities was accepted in societies as with equal rights at the end of the XIX century and beginnings of the XX century, on the other hand to the US took almost 200 years (from 1776 to 1960) to finally recognize officially the social equal rights for black people.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

#1. We will start with the Puritans

The first group of “Mayflower” Christians to set foot on what was to become Massachusetts’s soil were separatists meaning they left the Church of England behind. Those separatists were eventually absorbed into the following groups of non-separatist Puritans who under Congregationalist Churches maintained a loyal relationship with the Church of England until the revolt against King Charles in 1776 was declared.

In no way should the early separatist Puritans be confused with the Revolutionary War Separatists. Many of the 1776 separatists were not Christian in a Puritan/Calvinistic sense at all. They were more philosophically aligned with the modern liberal mindset of the times when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

“So who, then, were the Puritans? While the Separatists believed that the only way to live according to Biblical precepts was to leave the Church of England entirely, the Puritans thought they could reform the church from within. Sometimes called non-separating Puritans, this less radical group shared a lot in common with the Separatists, particularly a form of worship and self-organization called “the congregational way.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/pilgrims-puritans-differences​

Haha, yes, "founded" as soon as we could clear the Native Americans out. And the Church of England. And after getting us lots of brown slaves to help build it for us.

Yes, very "multicultural". I mean, we did have different types of patriarchal white christians, I suppose. Diversity!

 

[Votto]

#1. We will start with the Puritans

The first group of “Mayflower” Christians to set foot on what was to become Massachusetts’s soil were separatists meaning they left the Church of England behind. Those separatists were eventually absorbed into the following groups of non-separatist Puritans who under Congregationalist Churches maintained a loyal relationship with the Church of England until the revolt against King Charles in 1776 was declared.

In no way should the early separatist Puritans be confused with the Revolutionary War Separatists. Many of the 1776 separatists were not Christian in a Puritan/Calvinistic sense at all. They were more philosophically aligned with the modern liberal mindset of the times when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

“So who, then, were the Puritans? While the Separatists believed that the only way to live according to Biblical precepts was to leave the Church of England entirely, the Puritans thought they could reform the church from within. Sometimes called non-separating Puritans, this less radical group shared a lot in common with the Separatists, particularly a form of worship and self-organization called “the congregational way.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/pilgrims-puritans-differences​

The immigration by Europeans to America was not a multicultural success.

In case you had not noticed, the European had no interest in assimilating into the Indian culture.

What is left of the Indian people after the mass immigration from Europe are left on poverty stricken, drug ravaged, reservations.

So much for multiculturalism.

It is a warning for future mass immigration from a people who have a similar disdain for the culture of the people of that land.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#71 reply to the “key founders were not Christian, they were theistic/rationalists” Post #67

A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians such as Thomas Jefferson,[32][33][34] who constructed the Jefferson Bible, and Benjamin Franklin.[35]

.....and this from Ding from the same post:

Historian Gregg L. Frazer argues that the leading Founders (John Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Wilson, Morris, Madison, Hamilton, and Washington) were neither Christians nor Deists, but rather supporters of a hybrid "theistic rationalism".[36]

....and this from Ding from the same post:

32 Letter to Alexander von Humboldt, December 6, 1813. "History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."

I see a clear cultural divide in what Ding posted.

A cultural divide between perhaps a majority of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention devoted to Christianity in some degree and its Savior, Bible, priests clergy church plus a couple of Catholics on one side. And on the other side toleration for that Christian culture with respect to the moral teachings of Jesus of a Nazareth but a higher devotion to science, the enlightenment and what was called theistic rationalism.

These men are not of the same culture as Ding maintains here in post #24

They all had the same culture. Different religious beliefs isn’t in and of itself multiculturalism. That’s true even for deists.

Different religious beliefs have divided humans into differing and warring cultures for ages.

America was founded as a multicultural nation because there were multiple cultures in the thirteen colonies during the Revolution and the westward settlements. There were the dominant Protestants as one culture, there were Catholics, unchurched, Judaism. Then there was the African culture. I don’t see how Ding can ignore Native Americans. They had there own culture.

The 55 delegates represented only a few of the cultures, but they negotiated a Constitution that prevented zero opportunity for the central government to favor one over the other or prevent the practice of any choice of conscience no matter how small the minority.

That is why Ding is absolutely wrong when he wrote on a post # 3

The belief in multiculturalism at the time of founding is a pipe dream.

So maybe Ding needs to learn about one Protestant Delegate who I will say gets my pick as the prince of multiculturalism for all the Thirteen Colonies.

South Carolina’s Charles Pinckney,

Moroccan Muslims in Revolutionary South Carolina

A Moroccan-American community lived in South Carolina during the Revolutionary era, though its exact origins are unclear. Some members had likely been brought to North America as slaves and then been freed; others may have arrived as immigrants fleeing the violence of the Barbary Pirates, encouraged to seek refuge by the 1786 Treaty of Friendship between the fledgling United States and Morocco. In any case, by 1790 the community was sizeable enough to necessitate action in the state legislature to clarify the status and citizenship of its members. A law was passed, the Moors Sundry Act, recognizing South Carolina’s Moroccan residents as “white,” thus exempting them from laws governing free or enslaved African Americans and requiring them to fulfill certain civic obligations such as jury duty.

The presence of this Muslim American population contributed to two significant statements on religion in the new nation. The only reference to religion in the body of the U.S. Constitution, Article VI, avowed that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office.” This provision was drafted in part by South Carolina’s Charles Pinckney, who also served as one of the authors of the Moors Sundry Act. During debates in the South Carolina about ratifying the Constitution, Pinckney unequivocally defended the “no litmus test” clause. In response to a question posed by a fellow legislator, Pinckney stated not only that the clause would allow a Muslim to run for office in the United States, but also he hoped to live to see that happen.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#72

In case you had not noticed, the European had no interest in assimilating into the Indian culture

In case you had not noticed, the point being made here is that America was not founded as a mono cultural Protestant Christian Nation. That’s a couple hundred years after the first Mayflower arrived.

I’m saying the founding fathers wrote a Constitution than from the very first day that did not set up a national Federal central government restricts present and future citizens to favored citizen status only if they professed a belief in a state sponsored as white Protestant Christian religion.

Your will notice that I have not advocated that the Puritans were some kind of multicultural heroes. I point out they were anti-Separatists and loyal to the King of England.

It took Enlightenment Non or barely Christian men like Jefferson and Madison to lead white Protestant Christians to Accept a national Constitution that did not give white Protestant Christianity state religion states in the new nation.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

A link I forgot to provide in post #71



MULTICULTURAL DIVERSITY IN REVOLUTIONARY AMERICA

AUGUST 19, 2014


https://scholars.org/brief/roots-multicultural-diversity-revolutionary-america

 

[sparky]

Seems you too have thrown the baby out with the bath water.

from your sig line>>>

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational

the very same concept applies to 'religion'

And you don’t come across as anti-Christian when you do it.

I'm not & thx for recognizing that

One can have great faith , and dismiss the religmo hierarchy for it's manipulation of it

I think you need to face the reality that America was founded on Christian values and principles.

You'd have a better argument declaring the interest in the 'new world' rooted in capitalistic values and principals

Check out Chris Columbus' speaking tour of Europe ,after his jaunts across the pond

He wasn't sellin' salvation....

~S~

 

[ding]

#72

In case you had not noticed, the European had no interest in assimilating into the Indian culture

In case you had not noticed, the point being made here is that America was not founded as a mono cultural Protestant Christian Nation. That’s a couple hundred years after the first Mayflower arrived.

I’m saying the founding fathers wrote a Constitution than from the very first day that did not set up a national Federal central government restricts present and future citizens to favored citizen status only if they professed a belief in a state sponsored as white Protestant Christian religion.

Your will notice that I have not advocated that the Puritans were some kind of multicultural heroes. I point out they were anti-Separatists and loyal to the King of England.

It took Enlightenment Non or barely Christian men like Jefferson and Madison to lead white Protestant Christians to Accept a national Constitution that did not give white Protestant Christianity state religion states in the new nation.

You are literally fighting an argument no one, least of all me, has made. No one is arguing that America was founded as a theocracy.

 

[ding]

Seems you too have thrown the baby out with the bath water.

from your sig line>>>

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational

the very same concept applies to 'religion'

And you don’t come across as anti-Christian when you do it.

I'm not & thx for recognizing that

One can have great faith , and dismiss the religmo hierarchy for it's manipulation of it

I think you need to face the reality that America was founded on Christian values and principles.

You'd have a better argument declaring the interest in the 'new world' rooted in capitalistic values and principals

Check out Chris Columbus' speaking tour of Europe ,after his jaunts across the pond

He wasn't sellin' salvation....

~S~

My last post applies to you as well, Sparky.

 

[ding]

Hat tip to Sparky for reminding me to post this. As I have zero doubt that the ones posting here are socialist leaning or dupes of socialists. Which is why they attempt to destroy our Christian heritage.

Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.

 

[luchitociencia]

The poor understanding of the mentality of the first Europeans in this land, is clearly noticed in many messages of this topic.

The Pilgrims were people who had the bible as a guidance.

You read in the bible that the Israelite killed and exterminated the peoples who were originally in the land.

There you go, using the bible as their example the new migrants reaching the northeast of this continent copied to the letter the biblical narration. The persecution and almost total extermination of the aborigines populations is the true history.

No multiculturalism but the attempt to preserve their ethnicity over the rest. And this was just the beginning.

On the "second part" when an independent government was reached, then to push and kill Spaniard populations, taking by force their lands.

The current multiculturalism found in the US was reached after centuries of fight against the government in order to provide social equality to minorities.

And this current multicultural status in the US is what is causing a complete misunderstanding of history.

The primeval US, the one which originated this great nation, was against several its own social diversity found today.

Lets say, if George Washington was capable to foresee the future and was watching yesterday's debate where a homosexual is running for president... then forget it... same George Washington will go to the cantina, the one besides the huge tree, and will tell the other patriots:

-"Hmmm... about the new nation we want to build... just forget about it... it's not worthy... I just saw sodomites will try to take control of our people..."

That was the mentality of the "first Americans" and thanks to that mentality this country became so great... the bible was their guidance.

We must understand that multiculturalism is about cultures, races and ethnicities, but other than that, is not multicultural but defects, like for example, homosexuality, lesbianism, etc.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

#79 reply to #75

You are literally fighting an argument no one, least of all me, has made. No one is arguing that America was founded as a theocracy.

#79 I’m not saying that anybody is.


In Post #72 I wrote

#72a In case you had not noticed, the point being made here is that America was not founded as a mono cultural Protestant Christian Nation.

#79 That’s not referring to a Theocracy. It’s referring to making Protestant Christianity the established national church as it was in half a dozen states back then. The president is elected by the people all per the terms of the Constitution, but had to be a practicing white male Protestant Christian.

#72b I’m saying the founding fathers wrote a Constitution that from the very first day did not set up a national Federal central government that restricted present and future citizens to a favored citizen status only if they professed a belief in a state sponsored as white Protestant Christian religion.

#79 Same as above.

#72c It took Enlightenment Non- or barely Christian men like Jefferson and Madison to lead white Protestant Christians to accept a national Constitution that did not give white Protestant Christianity state religion (as was the case) in the six States of the new nation.

#79 where do you see a mention of theocracy?

 

[LuckyDuck]

#1. We will start with the Puritans

The first group of “Mayflower” Christians to set foot on what was to become Massachusetts’s soil were separatists meaning they left the Church of England behind. Those separatists were eventually absorbed into the following groups of non-separatist Puritans who under Congregationalist Churches maintained a loyal relationship with the Church of England until the revolt against King Charles in 1776 was declared.

In no way should the early separatist Puritans be confused with the Revolutionary War Separatists. Many of the 1776 separatists were not Christian in a Puritan/Calvinistic sense at all. They were more philosophically aligned with the modern liberal mindset of the times when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

“So who, then, were the Puritans? While the Separatists believed that the only way to live according to Biblical precepts was to leave the Church of England entirely, the Puritans thought they could reform the church from within. Sometimes called non-separating Puritans, this less radical group shared a lot in common with the Separatists, particularly a form of worship and self-organization called “the congregational way.” https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.history.com/.amp/news/pilgrims-puritans-differences​

I find it interesting that when, as in the case of the Puritans, the religious flee an area because of persecution and settle into an area they can practice their faith freely, the very next thing they do is, begin persecuting those that don't strictly follow their own religion. You would think that they would have learned from their own personal experience. But, the problem is that the Abrahamic religions are inherently evil. They create and "us against them" mentality.