The way that was phrased begs me to play devil's advocate. You know this right?
Of course it does! (and pardon me if this is more of an outline for an argument than an actual argument, but in any case I don't want to preach at you)
The first thing to establish is that there's a difference between what we historically have been culturally and what we were established as legally. If you want to tell me that this nation has been overwhelmingly culturally Christian since its founding, I won't argue very hard (though I will point out that it was never 100% and your understanding of history will be much richer if you remember that and that, even taking into account bumps in the Red Scare 50s and Moral Majority 80s-90s, this has been growing steadily less true over the country's entire history)
But was this legally a Christian nation? Not on your life. You point out examples of laws that now seem to indicate that the country is legally Christian, but I would say that it's not fair to say that eighteenth-century legislators had no concern with the separation of church and state just because they (for example) limited marriage to a man and a woman, any more than it's fair to say that they had no concern for personal liberty just because they (for example) failed to explicitly provide the kind of privacy protection that we now recognize is legally needed for liberty. The founding fathers allowed for personal liberty in ever way that was within the scope of political discussion at the time- quartering, habeas corpus, search and seizure. They did not explicitly provide for privacy for (say) our medical records and decisions or our library/online information consumption, because such things simply weren't part of the discussion, but it's still safe to say that "This country was founded on a principle of personal liberty."
In much the same way, the founding fathers provided for separation of church and state in every way that was within the scope of personal conversation at the time- no religious test, no establishment, etc. It's not fair to point to something like explicitly heterosexual marriage laws (for example) to try to claim that this isn't a legally non-religious country- rather, the correct response is to try to bring our laws into accord with what our new understanding of "legally secular country" dictates.
(and if you were speaking of state and local laws, that's a whole other ball of wax which I won't get into, save to point out that the federal government has been wildly superior to most state and local governments on most issues for most of our history)
Then the issue is the move from factual to normative. This country was culturally but not legally Christian- the problem is that all too many people believe that a culturally Christian nation should be a legally Christian one, or that a nation that was undeniably culturally Christian in the eighteenth century should remain so indefinitely. Moves from the factual to the normative are legally tricky, and both those arguments are invalid.
Basically, "This is a Christian nation!" is most often code for an argument that goes like this:
1. This was founded as a Christian nation! (a claim so lacking in nuance as to be useless as the foundation of an argument- see the above cultural/legal distinction) 2. That means we need to keep it a Christian nation! (Move from factual to normative does not follow) 3. That means we need to keep "under God in the pledge of alliance just like the founding fathers put it there! (Reveals abysmal historical idiocy as well as logical invalidity in the service of a knee-jerk xenophobic conservative argument. It's like a double-decker bus of fail!)
And yes, that really, really, really was the short version.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2009-05-16 12:54 am (UTC)Of course it does! (and pardon me if this is more of an outline for an argument than an actual argument, but in any case I don't want to preach at you)
The first thing to establish is that there's a difference between what we historically have been culturally and what we were established as legally. If you want to tell me that this nation has been overwhelmingly culturally Christian since its founding, I won't argue very hard (though I will point out that it was never 100% and your understanding of history will be much richer if you remember that and that, even taking into account bumps in the Red Scare 50s and Moral Majority 80s-90s, this has been growing steadily less true over the country's entire history)
But was this legally a Christian nation? Not on your life. You point out examples of laws that now seem to indicate that the country is legally Christian, but I would say that it's not fair to say that eighteenth-century legislators had no concern with the separation of church and state just because they (for example) limited marriage to a man and a woman, any more than it's fair to say that they had no concern for personal liberty just because they (for example) failed to explicitly provide the kind of privacy protection that we now recognize is legally needed for liberty. The founding fathers allowed for personal liberty in ever way that was within the scope of political discussion at the time- quartering, habeas corpus, search and seizure. They did not explicitly provide for privacy for (say) our medical records and decisions or our library/online information consumption, because such things simply weren't part of the discussion, but it's still safe to say that "This country was founded on a principle of personal liberty."
In much the same way, the founding fathers provided for separation of church and state in every way that was within the scope of personal conversation at the time- no religious test, no establishment, etc. It's not fair to point to something like explicitly heterosexual marriage laws (for example) to try to claim that this isn't a legally non-religious country- rather, the correct response is to try to bring our laws into accord with what our new understanding of "legally secular country" dictates.
(and if you were speaking of state and local laws, that's a whole other ball of wax which I won't get into, save to point out that the federal government has been wildly superior to most state and local governments on most issues for most of our history)
Then the issue is the move from factual to normative. This country was culturally but not legally Christian- the problem is that all too many people believe that a culturally Christian nation should be a legally Christian one, or that a nation that was undeniably culturally Christian in the eighteenth century should remain so indefinitely. Moves from the factual to the normative are legally tricky, and both those arguments are invalid.
Basically, "This is a Christian nation!" is most often code for an argument that goes like this:
1. This was founded as a Christian nation! (a claim so lacking in nuance as to be useless as the foundation of an argument- see the above cultural/legal distinction)
2. That means we need to keep it a Christian nation! (Move from factual to normative does not follow)
3. That means we need to keep "under God in the pledge of alliance just like the founding fathers put it there! (Reveals abysmal historical idiocy as well as logical invalidity in the service of a knee-jerk xenophobic conservative argument. It's like a double-decker bus of fail!)
And yes, that really, really, really was the short version.