Is America a Christian Nation - Research Paper Example

?Even in the 21st century a common belief is still that the USA was founded on the morals and principles of Christianity. This belief is highly doubtful, and it is possible to assume, that Christianity not only wasn’t a source of wonderful achievements in the field of morality, freedom of speech and human dignity, but was resistant to them, trying by all means to prevent their spread. Christianity also did not inspire the Revolution and by no means was responsible for formation of an independent state. This paper explores several issues concerning Christian dogma, Christian principles and worldviews, as well as official documents to prove that America is not a nation founded on the morals and principles of Christianity. The paper investigates the difference between Christian and liberal principles and secular concepts. It also pays attention to such fundamental questions as human rights, freedom of conciseness, and ideas of the Revolution. Christianity and Liberalism: the Conflict of Worldviews Both in Christian and liberal worldview and in value system an important place is given to seemingly one and the same value – the value of the individual and the associated value of individual rights and freedoms. But it should be understood that this similarity is illusory and formal; it contains the principal substantive differences and contradictions. These differences come to the fact that in Christianity these considered values ??have an absolute divine source, and thus are endowed with an absolute moral dimension; in the liberal paradigm all these values ??have only human, relative and conventional sources, and thus lacking absolute moral dimension. History of the formation of the liberal system of values is ??directly related to the history of Western secular thought, which, starting from the secular humanism of the Renaissance and the secular philosophy of the Enlightenment, put by the wayside Christian religious value orientations, and subsequently totally withdrew from them. In the basis of values ??and principles designated by new liberal system were not absolute divine reasons, as it was in the Christian system, but the relative secular human conventions. Because actually beyond religion there can be no justification for the absolute; only religion provides absolute divine source and absolute divine basis of its values ??– morals, man, his freedom and rights. Secular values ??and principles—above all, the values ??of secular freedom, human rights, morality and values—are not absolute and universal, but relative and conventional, and historically borrowed from Christianity and secularly reconsidered. Approved by the new secular philosophy these concepts of “natural man”, his “natural state”, his “natural rights” are understood beyond the divine and moral dimension. These secular concepts became the basis of subsequent concepts of “social contract”, “Declaration of Independence,” “Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen”, adopted by anti-Christian French Revolution, and finally, the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” adopted by the UN General Assembly in1948. Secular concepts prevailed, and Christian religion lost its leading role in the beginning of the US history. In 1796 the United States entered into a treaty with Tripoli during the Barbary wars. Article eleven of this treaty stated clearly that the Unites States officials considered their country as not a Christian nation: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion…” (Lillian Goldman Law library online). As a matter of fact, this article only proved that all the religions were equal in the territory of the United states, just as the First Amendment of the Constitution states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”(United States Constitution). Thomas Paine and Human Rights In the late 18th century, when Paine, while still being a Quaker, began to write in support of human rights, he found support among some English politicians (Smith). One of them was Edmund Burke, the future prime minister of England. He ardently supported Paine in his fight for human rights, and even wrote several works in support of improving the lives of colonized peoples. But everything changed dramatically with the aggravation of affairs and the revolution in America, and later in France. French and British religious leaders called on to suppress the growing discontent, which claimed the equality of every person and denied the right of certain people to hereditary power. Church leaders and theologians argued citing the Scripture that the king is God’s protege, and that some people are to be poor, and some to be rich, and it is all God’s will. Man’s task is to put up before this God’s will and patiently carry his own cross in life. Then in the next life God will reward them (Olmstead 34). Human rights activists opposed them. Their objection is true today as well. They said that it is immoral to promise bliss after death, in exchange for the suffering, injustice and misery in this life. Revolution in America made ??the British church leaders extremely aggressive to the concepts of rights and freedoms. Burke, who had by then become prime minister, switched to a completely different tone. He supported the theologians who developed the theory that the power is given by God, and it is not for people to take or administer it (Smith). From the pulpit they preached that fighters for the rights and freedoms repeat the sin of Adam and Eve, overthrow God’s power and demand freedoms and rights that God had not given them. In America, Christians also persistently resisted the doctrine of rights and freedoms of Paine. It was increasingly frustrating him, and he was increasingly using Christian rhetoric to advance his ideas—even though he was becoming a deist with understanding that slavery and inequality are rooted in the Bible (Smith). Given that the majority of common Americans consisted of descendants of religious refugees, the young American leaders were forced to constantly use religious language and mask their humanistic ideas under religious ones. This is how Thomas Paine had to act, as well as his friend Thomas Jefferson, who described himself in his personal correspondence as deist, materialist, and Unitarian. Since in America in the 18th century there was no alternative to Christianity, the founding fathers disguised their rhetoric under a Christian one. However, after the Revolution, it turned out that a pseudo-religious rhetoric had its limits. American Christians could be persuaded to revolution, but Paine was disappointed that he could not persuade them to abandon slavery. However much he tried, his faithful contemporaries exposed his attempt to justify the prohibition of slavery by arguing that the man is the image of God. They clearly pointed out to him that slavery was approved by both the Old and New Testament (Smith). Realizing that Christianity was a reactionary force, which prevented the formation of civil liberties and expressly denied them, Paine eventually decided to directly declare his break with Christianity, and instead focused on criticism aiming, inter alia, at preventing the forced conversion of Indians into Christianity. Payne failed to implement his plan to the end. In the early 19th century in England and America Christian religious reaction intensified. Christian churches denounced Human Rights and an author who was dying in dishonor, and praised the social status quo. After the death of Paine, the reaction intensified even more. Everywhere people sang Cecil F. Alexander’s hymn “All Things Are Beautiful”, written at the peak of the reaction in 1848, including the third verse: “The rich man in his castle,\ The poor man at his gate,\God made them, high or lowly,\And ordered their estate” . In the modern version the third verse is prudently omitted. Freedom of Conscience and Separation of Church and State In the early seventeenth century, Europe entered the epoch of massive and prolonged change—change that would transform the West and have important consequences for the rest of the world: “This era, now called by historians the modern period, was marked by the successive rise of rationalism, science, political liberalism and secularism, industrialization, and imperialism” (Wilson 66). Many people who came to the coast of North America in the 17th century, escaped to the New World from religious persecution in Europe, primarily in England. Experiences left an imprint on these people, they responded to any sort of infringing of their freedom of conscience with extreme pain. The colonies soon adopted the principle: each enjoys his own religion, his opinion about the religion of Christ. Of course, religion was conceived only in the context of Christianity. Creating the principle of freedom of conscience the founding fathers of the United States had in mind business interest as well: people would not settle in the colonies without solid guarantees of their religious freedom. Therefore, the authorities of the settlements allowed any believer to live there under the condition that he would maintain peace and public order. The same was true for communities. The criterion of legality was compliance with the community peace and public order. In respect of religion and statute the communities were independent. In 1643, the British Parliament gave the American colonies a complete freedom of conscience. Not without a calculation on the same economic effect. King Charles the First did not object. It is not surprising that the settlers, being different in the original religious beliefs, could not agree on a unified Church. Inconsistency in this matter gradually influenced the development of American society. The inhabitants of the colonies were of the opinion that the Church should not interfere in public affairs. Its occupation is Sunday divine worship and salvation of souls. It should be noted that a significant influence on the thinking of American colonists had views of the English philosopher John Locke (1632-1704), who taught that the Church is “a voluntary society of men, joining themselves together of their own accord in order to the public worshipping of God in such manner as they judge acceptable to Him, and effectual to the salvation of their souls” (Locke, 1689). Locke believed that the Church exists for people, not the people for the churches. Christianity, he understood solely as a matter of saving one’s soul (Waldron). Therefore, the Church should deal only with issues of salvation and serve the common good. It should avoid political affairs. Locke defended the right of the Church’s independence from the state, the same right he endowed a separate personality. All three parties are equal; nobody has the right to rule. The state he viewed as a social contract (note: not the establishment of God), so the state should support public morality. Independence of the Church, in his opinion, could be ensured only by separation of church and state. He justified such separation by branch separation of powers (Waldron). Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802 in response to a letter from the Association, written in October 1801. Jefferson writes, “Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”(Jefferson) The American Revolution and Christianity What was the role of Christians in the years of revolutionary war in fact? At a time when politicians were preparing for war, the Christians were preparing to accept persecution for refusing to participate in the bloodshed. Mennonites, Quakers, German Baptists, and a number of other less known denominations did not take part in the war. As three Mennonite bishops in Pennsylvania wrote in 1773, “Through God’s mercy we enjoy unlimited freedom in both civil and religious matters” (Christian Light Publications). The same source sadly concludes: “As the fight for liberty started, the freedom of nonresistant Christians became sharply limited” (ibid). Mennonite and German Baptist leaders assumed in 1775, “We have dedicated ourselves to serve all men in everything that can be helpful to the preservation of men's lives, but...we are not at liberty in conscience to take up arms to conquer our enemies, but rather to pray to God, who has power in heaven and on earth, for us and them.” (ibid) The settlers had all the civil and religious liberty. There were only differences on the question of taxation, but nevertheless, the tax was not a burden: no one went hungry, no one was driven from home and no one was persecuted (Middlekauff). Common people had no idea to start a war for independence. According to some historians, this war was started by wealthy settlers, as they had to pay more taxes, and they wanted to keep all their profits (Middlekauff). Tea tax caused the revolt. But in the 18th century tea was very expensive, and for this reason common people simply did not drink it, and hence the tea tax did not concern them. Tea was only for the elite, and hence the tax touched only its interests. But can a Christian following Christ in everything start bloodshed for his personal financial interests? It is very pertinent to recall that at the time of Christ, Israel was under the heel of the Roman Empire. Israelites paid tribute to Caesar, and this tribute was extremely unpopular, and so people just despised tax collectors who collected this tribute. And when Jesus was asked: Is it permissible to pay tribute to Caesar, Jesus said: “Then give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s” (Luke 20:25). This means that Christians have no right to stir up the conflict to force establish such a system of taxation that to someone would seem fair, even if the country was a colony. And in general, Christians who all follow the Bible should not take up arms, and in this issue there can be no other opinions (Emerson). As for those Christians who respect not the word of God, but their own traditions, and which are often referred to as “nominal Christians”, they believe that Christians are supposed to take part in the war, if war is just. Those American Christians believe their revolutionary war fair. But the reason of the American Revolution was the desire not to pay taxes, and so this revolutionary war does not fit into their own concept of “just” war. Considering that in the 18th century most of Christians did follow the word of God it becomes clear that the War for Independence could not be initiated by Christians, and rather had secular reasons, as well as foundation of the independent state. Conclusion The United States of America is a state which was founded on secular principles. Christianity as a dogma either didn’t take part in creation of principles of democracy, but sometimes was resistant to them. During the formation of independent state Christianity was a reactionary force, which prevented the formation of civil liberties and expressly denied them. The Founding Fathers were not all Christians and most often had to use Christian rhetoric to introduce their ideas to the public. Christian circles were against the War of Independence and tried not take part in it. All state above allows to say that this nation was founded not on the morals and principles of Christianity, but on secular principles, the principles of liberalism. Bibliography Christian Light Publications. US Anabaptists during the Revolutionary War. Web 11.04.2011 Emerson, E. Puritanism in America, 1620-1750. Boston: Twayne Publishers, 1977. Hymns Ancient and Modern, 1861. All Things Bright and Beautiful. Edited by H.W.Baker and others. Web 11.04.2001 Jefferson, T. Letter to Danbury Baptist Association. 1802, Library of Congress Locke, J. A Letter Concerning Toleration. 1689. Web 11.04.2011 Middlekauff, R. The Glorious Cause: The American Revolution, 1763-1789. New York: Oxford University Press, 1985. Olmstead, C. History of Religion in the United States. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1960. Smith, F. Thomas Paine: Liberator. New York: Frederick A. Stokes, 1938. The Barbary Treaties 1786-1816. Web 04.04.2001 The Bible. New International Version, 2011. Web 11.04.2001 The United States Constitution. Library of Congress Waldron, J. God, Locke, and Equality: Christian Foundations of John Locke’s Political Thought. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2002. Wilson, B. Christianity. London: Routledge, 1999. Read More