Essay talk:Was the United States Founded as a Christian Nation?

-"I’d advise US Liberals (As an outsider) to simply accept that the United States was founded on Christian principles (Lockean notions of Natural Rights, for example)"- I still don´t see these christian principles anywhere, allow me to say that Jefferson was actually a deist who accepted Jesus´teachings, not his divinity. Furthermore, the Declaration of Independece does, in fact mention a "Creator", but it never says that it is the biblical God.

-"The fact is that the ‘separation of church and state’ mentioned in the first amendment is not a rejection of God and Christianity within the nation but rather is an assertion..."- Separation of Church and State is never mentioned here, it is mentioned in Jefferson´s letters though.
 * On the first point, the natural-rights principles were drawn from Locke, who drew his stuff from the teachings of an anti-Trinitarian sect, the Polish Brethren. The idea that "all men are created equal" is quite peculiar to Christianity; earlier ideas did not posit equal worth, but only an equal opportunity to prove varying worth, if that. 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems like you take ideas that may have been adapted from Christian principles, note their history in Christian doctrine and then stop. If these principles were created from whole cloth by Christianity, you may have an interesting observation (but certainly not a valid point). &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 18:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But what other source was there for that idea? Was there a secular justification made for it to remove it from its old underpinnings? 18:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I simply cannot take the suggestion that equality among men is unjustifiable without Christianity seriously. If you're trolling, I quit. If you're serious, I can't help you. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am certain that there is a secular justification for "equality among men" somewhere, but I have never seen one. It would be an excellent rebuttal of the right-wingers' idea that equality and tolerance require Christianity to be the law. 19:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The example does not have to be secular, does it? Just non-Christian. (or pre-Christian?) &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 19:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But then the argument could be put that there are only religious justifications for equality, and we all know how handily right-wingers jump from "religion" in general to Christianity, as in the Wedge Document. 20:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The great thing about not being bound by doctrine is that we're free to just make one up. On another note, a pre-Christian religious endorsement of equality would be from (I think) Epictetus: "Slaves are the equals of other men, because all alike are sons of God." QED, the US was founded as a Greek pagan nation? Of course not... &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, how about one that is more than a single sentence and does not mention an unnamed God?
 * And here is what Epictetus had to say about universal equality: "Has any man been preferred before you at a banquet, or in being saluted, or in being invited to a consultation? If these things are good, you ought to rejoice that he has obtained them: but if bad, be not grieved because you have not obtained them; and remember that you cannot, if you do not the same things in order to obtain what is not in our power, be considered worthy of the same (equal) things." (Enchiridion 25) 20:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, you're barring argument by assertion, yet Christianity basically relies on it. I'm sure there's something out there that will satisfy you. Unfortunately, I think you're the only who can (or cannot) find it. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, come now; for a philosophical principle that is accepted so widely among theists and nontheists alike, there must be some secular justification. What would be excellent is a justification that: (1) is actually an argument; (2) does not mention the supernatural or rely upon it. 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We're both sure that a personally satisfying justification exists, but only you can determine if it would be acceptable to you. I'd be interested in seeing your justification. &mdash; Unsigned, by: Neveruse513 / talk / contribs 20:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Allow me to jump in for a bit. Please define the list of things you consider Christian and the list of things you consider not Christian (especially the not Christian part), then we can discuss things about whatever founding principles of the United States and whether those things falls into the category of being Christian. This is to be done to prevent manifestations of "moving the goalpost".   19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Today"
For the record, "Today" as mentioned in the essay is 19 November 2008 (or earlier, I got it from history). Someone may consider putting it in the essay itself. 19:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

poor history
Why is it crappy essays, sites, and papers that try to purport a rather small minded religious view on our history (psuedo history) suck so bad at american history? the pligrams were a major foundation in the US colonization? we were "a colony" before we were a state? what the hell is this tripe?En attendant Godot 02:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note the author from the fossil record. Тy talk 02:25, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * So he's a troll who never pass history. hardly surprizing.  --[[Image:Pink mowse.png|25px]]En attendant Godot  02:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Who claims to be a historian no less. Тy talk 02:31, 19 August 2011 (UTC)