Whenever you see a religious right apologist claiming that America was founded as a "Christian nation", you inevitably find them defining the nation not from the point it was founded - the time of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution - but from the time of the colonies that were still ruled by England. In particular, they like to point to documents like the Mayflower Compact and the charters of the various colonies, all of whom had official established churches, as proof that we were indeed founded as a Christian nation.
The National Reform Association, which has been around for nearly two centuries and has made repeated attempts to amend the Constitution to include language declaring America an officially Christian nation, cites those documents on their webpage. Innumerable Christian webpages refer to those earlier documents for evidence, including this one:
The majority of the founding fathers and American's in general were Christians. As we have seen from the above link to the Mayflower Compact, the main reason this country was founded was so that those Christians could spread the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ. They viewed the constitution, Bill of Rights and all laws that were passed as a having come from Biblical principles, and that these documents were all subordinate to the Bible. They were well aware of the fact that God had given them and all of mankind very specific litmus tests in the Bible that they needed to apply to all government officials before putting them into positions of power. There wasn't a need to specifically restate these God given mandates because they were already addressed in the more authoritative Bible, and were common knowledge.
Leaving aside the obvious fact that the revolution threw off and repudiated such colonial rule, and that contrary to this idiotic statement above, all such religious litmus tests were prohibited in the Constitution, it should also be obvious to anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of American history that the Declaration and the Constitution explicitly repudiated the political philosophy of a Christian nation and the policies that such colonies followed.
In Elizabeth Castelli's article on the War on Christian Conference, she notes that speakers repeatedly invoked the memory of John Winthrop's speech about the Massachusetts Bay Colony being a "city on a hill". The writer who goes by the nickname Mainstream Baptist, writing at Talk to Action, explains the absurd irony of today's Baptists pointing to this colony as a model to support the notion of a Christian nation. After citing the expulsion of Baptist Roger Williams, the man who originated the phrase "separation of church and state", he writes:
Rick Scarborough, president of the organization that sponsored the conference, is a Baptist. Had he paid attention to what he should have learned in his Baptist history classes at seminary, he would have learned that colonial Massachusetts was far from being a promised land for Baptists...
Williams was not the only Baptist to suffer such persecution. John Clarke, pastor of the Baptist Church at Newport, Rhode Island published an account of religious persecution in New England in his Ill News from New-England(1652). In it he told how in the summer of 1651, Obadiah Holmes, John Crandall, and John Clarke -- all members of the Baptist Church at Newport, Rhode Island -- were arrested and imprisoned for holding an unauthorized worship service in the home of a blind Baptist named William Witter who lived at Lynn, Massachusetts outside Boston. They were sentenced to be fined or whipped. Fines for Clarke and Crandall were paid by friends. Holmes refused to let friends pay his fine and was publicly whipped on the streets of Boston on September 6, 1651.
A year after Clarke's book was published, Henry Dunster, the first president of Harvard University, was forced to resign from his position and banished from Cambridge, Massachusetts. His crime: refusing to have his fourth child baptized as an infant and proclaiming that only believers should be baptized.
He also goes on to note perhaps even worse treatment of Quakers in the Colony:
As bad as it was for Baptists, it was worse for Quakers.
Sydney Ahlstrom records some of the ways that the authorities dealt with Quakers, "In July 1656 the ship Swallow anchored in Boston Harbor. It became known quickly that on board were two Quaker women, Mary Fisher and Ann Austin, who had shipped from Barbados. The authorities moved swiftly. The women were kept on ship while their belongings were searched and more than one hundred books confiscated. Although there was as yet no law against Quakers in Massachusetts, the two were hurried off to jail, stripped of all their clothing, and inspected for tokens of witchcraft. After five weeks, the captain of the Swallow was placed under a 100 pound bond to carry them back to Barbados." A Religious History of the American People, p. 178.
When these efforts failed to keep Quakers out of the colony, they resorted to more drastic measures. William Robinson, Marmaduke Stephenson, and William Leddra are listed among the Quaker martyrs in Massachusetts. The last Quaker martyr in Massachusetts, Mary Dyer, was hanged in the Boston Common on June 1, 1660. All died in defiance of a law banning Quakers from Massachusetts Bay Colony.
Not only was the Massachusetts Bay Colony a brutal Christian theocracy, it didn't even spare Christians from its wrath if they were the wrong brand of Christian. And that colony was not alone. Virginia was officially Anglican and it was a crime to be a Baptist there as well. James Madison was inspired to fight for religious freedom and the end of such religious establishments when, as a young man, he saw Baptist ministers being imprisoned for the crime of preaching the wrong kind of Christianity. So there is extraordinary irony in Christians, especially Baptists, citing the early colonies as models for a "Christian nation".
The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were an explicit repudiation of these practices. The Declaration's insistence on unalienable rights could not have been more in contrast to the theocratic rule of most of the colonies. The Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom and ban on religious tests for office were the last beginning of the end for the authoritarian madness that masqueraded as Christian piety under religious establishments.
Theocracy lost the battle to the Enlightenment and the Declaration and the Constitution were the primary weapons that brought it down. Let's make sure that the historical revisionists like David Barton don't turn back the clock to that dark day.
- Log in to post comments
Leaving aside the obvious fact that the revolution threw off and repudiated such colonial rule...
Perhaps not so obvious. While it's true that the Mayflower Compact does state its mission, as described, "so that those Christians could spread the gospel of salvation through Jesus Christ," that's not all it says.
While the Mayflower expedition was "undertaken for the Glory of God and the Advancement of the Christian Faith," it was also for "the Honour of our King and Country."
If the sovereignty of King James could be sundered, why not also the Christian heritage??
Leaving aside the fact that the Massachusetts Bay colony was not, by itself, the source of what became the United States. Which is ignored above in the claim that the Mayflower Compact founded "the country."
Here in Kentucky the governor is again trying desperately to save his political career by signing a bill to place a ten commandments monument at the Capitol. His reasoning is that it is a historical document with significant influence on the country and its culture. He says that he would be open to placing similar religious artifacts if they too have had an influence. Of course its his arbitrary decision as to what gets in.
The Christian-nationists also ignore the fact that many people coming to the colonies were fleeing religious restrictions or outright persecution by the dominant state religion. Many, like my colonial ancestors, came just to be left alone -- my heritage is notably irreligious going back at least 250 years.
The colonies of Pennsylvania and New Amsterdam made it a point to admit anyone, including Jews. The Quakers didn't care what religion you professed, and the Dutch only cared about what was good for business.
If you pick and choose your historical facts, as the Christianists do, you end up ignoring broader historical trends. The Puritans, the Baptists, the Quakers, the Huguenots, the Jews, etc., etc., came to the US to avoid "absorption" into a state religion. The Christianists want us to turn that process around in the name of some wacko dispensation. Their ancestors must be spinning in their graves at the stupidity of their offspring.
A very good source on this whole thread of our early history is Jim Morone's Hellfire Nation: The Politics of Sin in American History. Highly recommended.
I always find it ironic that people quote the Mayflower compact to demonstrate that we are a Christian Nation.
That same document also describes the colonists as "the Loyal Subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord, King James, by the Grace of God, of England, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, e&" and describes them as "[h]aving undertaken for . . . the Honour of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia;".
I guess under fundy-logic that makes us subjects of the British Crown and the Anglican Church.
"Baptist Roger Williams, the man who originated the phrase 'separation of church and state' "
Growing up in a Baptist church 50 years ago, we children had many lessons focused on Roger Williams. Every lesson had as its point the absolute necessity of keeping church and state separate to allow each person the freedom to make his own religious decisions and choices.
Every lesson had as its point the absolute necessity of keeping church and state separate to allow each person the freedom to make his own religious decisions and choices.
That is not the interpretation seemingly favored by the Southern Baptist Convention today. It's one reason why the moderates have split from the SBC.
Not to mention that many early colonial historians are quick to point out that there was more to colonialism than New England. In the Great Lakes and Louisiana the French were extremely influential and in the Southeast and Southwest the Spanish were important in the formation of the country. All of these groups had primarily economic interests in North America, and different religious foci.
More people ought to diagram the sentences in the Mayflower Compact.
As Diane Ravitch pointed out in her reader on American documents, the compact was necessary because the non-separatist majority -- artisans, craftsmen and tradesmen sent along by the London Company officials to make certain the colony had commercial enterprises to make money for the company -- had said they would refuse to follow the charter the group had, to establish a colony hundreds of miles south of where they were. John Bradford held the group aboard the ship while the agreement was worked out
And what does it really say? Does it say that the colony is a Christian colony? No. Does it say the colony's government got its justification from God or religion? No, quite the opposite.
The flowery introductory clauses note that the group came with hopes of establishing a colony for the glory of God; but the active part is quite simple, and quite different. It says simply that the colonists agreed between themselves that they would elect a group to make laws, and that they would bind themselves to follow those laws. It was government by consent of the governed, leaving God out of the compact, but hoping God would smile on it.
Barton never learned to diagram sentences, I guess.
Personally, I like best the fundamental irony of amending the constitution to prove that the country was founded on Christian principles. Now that's high powered logic.
In particular, they like to point to documents like the Mayflower Compact and the charters of the various colonies, all of whom had official established churches, as proof that we were indeed founded as a Christian nation.
THis is moderately interesting, but it strikes me that the people who wrote, signed and ratified the DoI and the Constitution were aware of the Mayflower compact and the various colonial charters, and, if they had wanted to even hint at this "christian nation" rigamarole, they knew very well how to do so. The fact that they did not speaks volumes.
I'm glad you referred to the battle at the end-- certainly the war is far from over.
Maybe the irony is lost on the Baptists, maybe its not. Honestly, I really don't think Scarborough or any of the rest really cares. For them it's not about consistency or logic or truth. When you get right down to it, it's not even about sharing the gospel outside of increasing their numbers, thus their power. Growing up Baptist, I'm well acquainted with people just like Scarborough, Falwell, Richard Land. After awhile you figure out what really makes them tick. It's not about other people's salvation, "mortal souls" etc. etc. That's great for making them feel good about themselves on Sunday morning, but that's not really the point. Just like the Puritans, at the root it's all about power, control and imposing their bizarre world view by force if necessary.
IMO, what is happening today is nothing less than the re-engagement of that battle. Kevin Phillips, in his American Theocracy refers to it as a "disenlightenment" that is being attempted by the religious right. This is the great battle of our time, as it affects nearly everything about our national politics, from our response to global warming to the war in Iraq.
I do believe this is the last gasp of a pre-enlightenment, medieval worldview insurgency. However, I've heard that phrase before, and I am not comforted.
One other nit: While it is close to accurate to note that most of the original 13 colonies had established churches, it is important to note that all 13 had moved to disestablish those churches by 1778. In fact, after 1778 only four colonies -- a distinct minority -- had any vestiges of establishment at all, and those vestiges did NOT include statements about the Christian nature of the nation. When Jefferson raised the issue of a bill of rights with Madison after the Constitution was proposed, the first concern Jefferson had was for religious freedom. Madison's response: Religious freedom was already guaranteed in each of the 13 former colonies.
Yes, there was backsliding at times, and yes, the disestablishment was not perfect, and yes some of the states tended to "forget" about disestablishment from time to time. But the trend toward religious freedom was accepted and actively promoted by our founders. On the whole, the trend to religious freedom and sharp separation of state and church has never been contended or reversed.