America Was Supposed to be a Christian Nation

Subject: Re: Christian Nations vs. Papist Nations
From: kevin4vft@aol.com (KEVIN4VFT)
Date: 01 Feb 1999 20:17:48 EST


I wrote:

>The U.S. Supreme Court declared that "this is a Christian nation,"

In article <19990131150230.02136.00002446@ng05.aol.com>, wyndrydyr@aol.com (WyndRydyr) writes:

> But the supreme court has never declared any such thing.

I'm always happy to re-post the evidence for the benefit of those who have just joined this Board.

On Feb. 29, 1892, the U.S. Supreme Court listed several pages of state constitutions and other laws, and declared,

These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation.

143 U.S. 457, 471, 12 S.Ct. 511, 516 36 L.Ed. 226

Before that, on February 3, 1890, in DAVIS v. BEASON, 133 U.S. 333 (1890), the Court rejected a claim that the First Amendment prohibited laws against polygamy where polygamy was a requirement of a religion. The Court held that in this country polygamy would be prohibited, because

Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries.   [133 U.S. 333, 342]

Probably never before in the history of this country has it been seriously contended that the whole punitive power of the government for acts, recognized by the general consent of the Christian world in modern times as proper matters for prohibitory legislation, must be suspended in order that the tenets of a religious sect encouraging crime may be carried out without hindrance. [133 U.S. 333, 343]

Prior to that, the Supreme Court held in REYNOLDS v. U.S., 98 U.S. 145 (1878):

This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

The clear answer to these rhetorical questions was, No, because this is a Christian nation. The Reynolds Court noted that polygamy was condemnd by the common law, and a few years earlier, the Court in Vidal v. Girard's Executors had observed:

It is also said, and truly, that the Christian religion is a part of the common law . . . .

In that case, the will of an atheist establishing a school to be run by the city of Philadelphia was challenged on the grounds that it prohibited the teaching of Christianity. But the Court said there was no evidence that the will did so, and there could be no presumption that it did:

It is unnecessary for us, however, to consider what would be the legal effect of a devise in Pennsylvania for the establishment of a school or college, for the propagation of . . . Deism, or any other form of infidelity. Such a case is not to be presumed to exist in a Christian country; and therefore it must be made out by clear [*199] and indisputable proof. Remote inferences, or possible results, or speculative tendencies, are not to be drawn or adopted for such purposes. There must be plain, positive, and express provisions, demonstrating . . . that Christinanity is not to be taught. . . .

Since there were no such provisions, the Court OK'd the will, noting that the City of Philadelphia would most assuredly hire Godly teachers to teach the Bible in the City school:

Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, without note or comment, be read and taught as a divine revelation in the college -- its general precepts expounded, its evidences explained, and its glorious principles of morality inculcated? There is no restriction as to the religious opinions of the instructors and officers. They may be, and doubtless, under the auspices of the city government, they will always be, men, not only distinguished for learning and talent, but for piety and elevated virtue, and holy lives and characters.

In a Christian nation, the government will always make sure that public offices are held by good, practicing Christians. At least that's the way the Supreme Court saw it in 1844. There are many declarations in state constitutions and Supreme Court opinions that America was a Christian nation. But today, of course, Christianity is no longer the established religion of America, but rather the religion of Secular Humanism is. And the Christian history of America is not taught in government schools any more. So Mr. WyndRydyr can be excused for not knowing the facts.

Kevin C.
http://members.aol.com/TestOath/HolyTrinity.htm
---------------------------------------------

And they shall beat their swords into plowshares
and sit under their Vine & Fig Tree.
Micah 4:1-7