“The question is flawed. Whether we are a ‘Christian’ nation or not is an over simplified approach to the issue. We are very certainly a nation whose culture, laws, and traditions are derived from our Judeo-Christian history. The idea of religious liberty comes straight out of our protestant Christian heritage. Right from the start, we mention God/Creator.

From the Declaration,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Those foundational ideas of God and Creator come straight out of a western Judeo-Christian philosophy. Those who argue that we are not a ‘Christian’ nation usually completely discount that contribution to our founding documents.

That having been said, it is clear that an important portion of the early settlers of the colonies came seeking religious freedom. That from which they sought protection was not the government they’d fled, but the church. They wanted a government in the US that protected them from a ‘state’ church. This is entirely consistent with more ‘Christian’ philosophy (specifically protestant, and more specifically Baptist or Anabaptist), which includes ideas like ‘priesthood of the believer’ and ‘soul competency.’ These ideas assert that man is competent and capable of a one to one relationship with God and that there is no requirement or need of a ‘Church’ to provide access to that relationship. As the Constitution was being drafted and the politic-ing started to try to get the colonies to ratify it, there was a lot of going back and forth between the religious leaders in the colonies and the guys pushing the Constitution. The main body of the document is basically agnostic about religion. But, the Baptists in the Northeast were so worried about religious liberty that they insisted on explicit language protecting their rights, and would not support ratification until/unless they were assured that the Bill of Rights would explicitly protect their interests. So, it was a bunch of religious zealots that helped get the Bill of Rights in the mix and it was they who pushed for this separation between church and state. It was in response to their concerns that Jefferson coined the phrase. The idea of a separation of church from state was a protestant Christian idea. When the framers of the Constitution were trying to get large significant portions of the population to support the Constitution, they were not writing letters back and forth with a bunch of worried atheists. They were corresponding with a bunch of Christians. To say that the Christians were not a major influencing factor in the formulation of our founding documents shows an ignorance of the history of how the documents came together.

For a lot more info on this stuff, see http://www.bjconline.org/resources/publications.htm and http://www.bjconline.org/resources/pubs/pub_spivey_separation.htm and just about everything else on that site….( a great site for this kind of info). And look up John Smyth and Thomas Helwys and the letters between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptists.”

The good folks blogging and commenting at the Delaware Liberal point to the Treaty of Tripoli as proof that the leaders of our country at that time held the belief that we were not a Christian nation. They suggest that the Declaration of Independence, while explicitly naming the Creator, is not a document that holds any legal status, and therefore it cannot be used to support the claim that the US is a Christian nation. But what they fail to admit is the crucial role the Declaration played in the founding of this nation. Think about what was at stake. The men who signed that piece of paper, regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof, knew that if the revolution they were about to ramp up were to fail, they would be hung by the British as traitors. They put their lives and way of life on the line for what they believed, as did the thousands of patriots that came together to fight the most powerful nation on Earth.

The obscure Treaty of Tripoli, on the other hand, does not seem like a document that should be held up as somehow evidence of secularism.

**UPDATE** – This just in….

I did some more digging (well, not that much really, just a few minutes on Google) trying to find out a little more about the Treaty of Tripoli. I came across the Avalon Project, a Yale University project whose purpose is “… dedicated to providing access via the World Wide Web to primary source materials in the fields of Law, History, Economics, Politics, Diplomacy and Government.” I found this little tidbit about the Treaty of Tripoli…

“As even a casual examination of the annotated translation of 1930 shows, the Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic; and even as such its defects throughout are obvious and glaring. Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, “the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,” does not exist at all. There is no Article 11. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.

A further and perhaps equal mystery is the fact that since 1797 the Barlow translation has been trustfully and universally accepted as the just equivalent of the Arabic. Its text was not only formally proclaimed as such but has been continuously printed and reprinted as such; and yet evidence of the erroneous character of the Barlow translation has been in the archives of the Department of State since perhaps 1800 or thereabouts; for in the handwriting of James Leander Cathcart is the statement quoted above that the Barlow translation is “extremely erroneous”; and while the Italian translation of the Arabic text on which that endorsement appears, presents its own linguistic difficulties, largely owing to its literal rendering and its consequent non-literary character as Italian, it is none the less in essence a reasonable equivalent of the Arabic. Indeed, allowing for the crudeness of the original Arabic and the changes which always result from a retranslation, it may be said that a rendering of the Italian translation into English gives a result which is in general not dissimilar from the English translation of Doctor Snouck Hurgronje of 1930; and of course the most cursory examination of the Italian translation would show (assuming the Italian to be even an approximation of the Arabic), that the Barlow translation, as Cathcart wrote, was “extremely erroneous”; but nothing indicating that the Italian translation was even consulted has been found, and it does not appear that it was ever before 1930 put into English. Some account of the Italian translation as a document is given above.”

So it would appear that the folks that like to point to the Treaty of Tripoli as an example of how we are NOT a secular nation are either unaware of this, or are aware and choose to ignore it, or are aware and feel that it is not important. What do you think?

Now back to your regularly scheduled blog….

I think my friend is spot on when he states that much of what our country and its laws are based on can be traced back to our Judeo-Christian traditions and beliefs. (As soon as I typed this, an image flashes in my head of an angry atheist yelling at me to stop telling them what to believe. I’m not. Trust me. I could care less what you believe, actually. I’m still busy working on me.) With minimal work, I’m sure I could dig up all kinds of sources to support this position, as I’m sure those on the other side could do the same. But I also look to what I see and have seen, and what I experience and have experienced in my life. I’m no bible thumper, and I’ve always been put off by the televangelist-Christian types (someone mentioned Benny Hinn, but have you checked out Jack and Rexella Van Impe? Scary!), but in the last several years, I have found a place amongst a special group of Christians here. It’s a warm and welcoming place, not judgmental or preachy. This group believes it is my responsibility to determine my relationship with God and Jesus Christ directly (priesthood of the believer) and that I am accountable directly to God for my faith in Christ (soul competency). I’m still working on these ideas and concepts as I endeavor to develop this relationship. I still have a lot of questions. But the more I am around these people and the more I learn about them and their faith, the more convinced I am that there truly is a God, and the deeper my faith becomes (for those of you reading this who know me might find this very strange, indeed!).

I do not know anything about Dovelove, but she has obviously had much different experiences than I have had. I don’t know where she lives or if she has had the opportunity to live in various places. I have lived in several different places in this beautiful country, including Utah, Nevada, Colorado, Tennessee, North Carolina, and South Carolina. I currently reside in the South now, and have been here for the better part of 20 years. My children are in public schools here. When there is an assembly or other gathering at their schools, the event begins with a word of prayer followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. I look at the friends my kids have, and they are all good kids. Some do not have ideal home lives, but they live in a community that values them, and that values our communities’ Christian foundation and heritage. Ours is a community of people who love this country, and who shake their heads in disbelief and disgust at those who would spit on it and wish it harm. We understand that we, as a nation, are far from perfect. We understand there are many, many problems in our area and in this country that need serious solutions. But we also understand that this is still the best country in the world. Even with all our flaws and blemishes, in my humble opinion, we truly are the greatest nation on Earth. If this were not the case, why would we be facing the kind of immigration challenges we face today? I don’t see news reports of the immigration problems Iran is having. But perhaps I just missed it….

This type of hateful rhetoric (and I understand that there is hateful rhetoric on the other side as well, but it wasn’t on display in this particular set of comments at the time) really serves no purpose. It doesn’t advance the discourse, but instead acts as a wedge. To be sure, there are those that call themselves Christians who are anything but, and they drive the same wedge. But it’s been my experience and observation that, by and large, Christians are caring, giving, and loving people. Dovelove, in her comments, states:

” The arrogance of Christians is a clue. They go in anywhere with their chests out, flapping their tongues freely about what they believe… They gasp, and seem genuinely appalled and stunned at the idea that prayer should not be part of all children’s public schooling, that we don’t want their frickin’ (sic) ten commandments in OUR government buildings. They’d freak if other religios (sic) beliefs were to be posted, held higher, in that way. They would swoon with disbelief at the very idea. Again, they know who’s the favored child in this nation — it’s blatant.”

As I said earlier, I don’t know Dovelove. But I wonder if her comments are based on any real relationships she has had with true Christians, or whether they are based on what she sees on TV or in the news. If she has not had the opportunity to get to know genuine Christians, I invite her to come spend some time in our community. It would be interesting to see if it would change her opinion in any way.

I do understand the point that some folks make, that we are much more that just a bunch of Christians. And that is true, people of all faiths are, or should be, welcomed in this country, up to the point at which a particular religion is hijacked and used as justification for mass murder, as I believe is the case with radical Islam today (moderate, peace-loving Muslims – rise up and take back your religion. Convince me it truly is a religion of peace, and that your teachings do not say to kill all those who do not believe as you do, as was the case with the Barbary Pirates). I know, I know, Christians, the Crusades and all that. Keep it in context, please. I’m referring to the here and now, about the world we find ourselves in today. To embrace other faiths does not mean we should deny the role Christianity has played in our nation’s history, and I think that’s the point that needs to be made, that rational Christians are not claiming this country as solely their own and all others be damned, but rather, I think what they are saying is that our nation was founded on Christian beliefs, and there are certain traditions that are tied to these beliefs and this faith that need to be left alone. There is nothing wrong with these traditions. They help define our culture and heritage, just as the traditions associated with other religions do. I’m afraid that if we continue down this road of political correctness with respect to this issue, we’ll rid ourselves of the very things that make us great.

(Nod to Jonah Goldberg on NRO’s – The Corner)

Even if only half of what is put forth in this article is accurate, it would seem like it would be enough to sound the death nell for Paul presidential aspirations. It should be interesting to watch. I wonder if it will come up in the next debate.

Speaking of kooks, I happened upon a democratic blog site and found this gem (be sure to read the last paragraph, if nothing else). Don’t know about you, but this really makes me scratch my head. These folks think Chavez is a terrific leader, one who is all about the little guy and the downtrodden. Only problem they fail to understand, see, or acknowledge is that Chavez is the one who is down treading on the little guy.

Only once since the War of 1812 have foreign troops invaded sovereign US territory. That invasion took place in June of 1942 when the Japanese landed on Kiska and Attu islands, located at the very end of the Aleutian Island chain. Attu was the scene of horrific fighting for 19 days in May of 1943 as US forces fought to take back the island from the entrenched Japanese. All but forgotten, the Battle of Attu was one of the bloodiest battles of the Pacific campaign, second only to Iwo Jima. If you are not familiar with this battle, find out more here. Also, look for the Independent Lens production, “Red White Black and Blue” on your local PBS station. Take the time to watch it. It’s our history.

In her letter to the editor of The Oak Ridger today, a Ms. Joan Cassens laments about our posturing towards Iran. Let’s take a look at what she has to say:

• An attack on Iran will result in injury and death. Many of those who would be killed or injured, especially children, are innocents who have no connection to the motivation for the attack. The United States has a moral obligation to set a good example to other nations by upholding our tradition of promoting peace and only engaging in war if attacked.

Yes, a military action usually results in injury and death. That’s the objective. However, to say that many who would be killed would be women and children is inaccurate, unless the Iranians employ women and children in their nuclear facilities. Surgical strikes on these facilities would result in the death of those working in these facilities. Of course, they could mimic those they fund (Hezbollah) and place women and children around and over the nuclear facilities to act as a shield, and to provide fodder for Al-Jazeera if and when we attack. A thought for Ms Cassens – If we don’t act, and Iran develops their nuclear weapons capabilities, how many women and children may die as a result of Iran launching nuclear weapons into Iraq or Israel?

• As shown in recent examples such as Libya and North Korea, diplomacy and economic incentives are viable alternatives to military action and almost certainly result in lower overall human and monetary costs. These examples of the success of diplomacy should give us hope to resolve conflicts without resorting to armed force.

It’s possible to make this argument to a point. Diplomacy and economic sanctions are tools already in use against Iran. But as we try to increase economic sanctions, but our efforts are being thwarted by Russia and China. If I remember right, it was when Saddam Hussein was drug out of his rat hole that Moammar al-Ghadafi decided to do the right thing with his WMD program. As for Korea, well, if it hadn’t of been for the stunning diplomatic savvy displayed by Madeline Albright, perhaps the most disappointing Secretary of State in our nations history, we wouldn’t have had to spend so much time and effort there. I wonder if Ms. Cassens knows how many North Korean women and children have died as a result of Kim Jong Il’s policies?
Diplomacy that is not backed up by a credible use of force is hollow.

• “Surgical” air strikes and limited incursions by ground-based special forces upon Iran, as suggested by the administration, are declarations of war, and will be viewed as such by the world. Such a war would inflame the whole Middle East in bloody conflict, resulting in great loss of innocent lives as well as the great loss of U.S. lives. Tensions between Muslims and non-Muslims would increase. Support for Muslim extremists would increase, even in Muslim countries with which we now have good relations. Worldwide terrorist attacks would increase.

I wonder if the President can borrow Ms. Cassens crystal ball, because she is sure making some pretty incredible predictions here. I think if she was to look at history, she might see that surgical-type strikes have rarely caused events to escalate to the scale she predicts. Once again, diplomacy must be backed up by credible force, and the US has the capability to conduct extremely accurate air strikes against targets within Iran. Also, Ms. Cassens confuses things here. I thought she just said that a declaration of war can only come through the congress, but here she states that a surgical strike is now a declaration of war. Huh?

Then she gets even more specific:

• An attack on Iran will also have specific consequences:
1. The supply of crude oil exported by Iran and the shipment of crude oil through the Persian Gulf would be restricted. Both of these actions would cause a further increase in the price of crude oil. The U.S. and world economies would suffer.

Once again, where is the evidence for this assertion of Iranian exports being curtailed? Certainly not found in this.

2. The billions of dollars necessary for military action against Iran and the ensuing uprising of rival Muslim factions would drain our economy and severely limit the money needed for domestic programs such as education and health care.

OK, this is getting old. She assumes that military action would cost “billions of dollars” and that there would be an “uprising of rival Muslim factions.” Military action would certainly cost a lot of money, but given how much we’ve spent so far combating Islamofascists and terrorists, our economy still seems to be quite robust. Ms. Cassens affinity for quoting the Constitution seems to end with assertion #2, because I don’t recall the Constitution stating that it is government’s responsibility to provide education and health care. If anything, history has shown that whenever government takes on something as health care or education, the results are less that stunning. Dismal would be a more appropriate description.

3. Our military services would be further overextended and our capacity to respond to other challenges would be diminished.

There might be some truth to this. However, that could be easily overcome by pulling our forces out of Bosnia and other locations in Europe that no longer need our help.

The group ended its visit by expressing the hope that Congressman Wamp will influence the outcome of this debate in a way which will lead to long-term peace and stability for the United States, the Middle East and the world. They concluded the meeting by joining hands and singing “We are the world.” (OK, maybe not the hand-holding and singing, but it sure sounds like they should have, doesn’t it?)

In short, and in my humble opinion, the views expressed by Ms. Cassens and her group are inaccurate and unrealistic. She fails to understand that the enemies we face today are unlike any we have faced in history. Their sole desire is to see all infidels dead, and Islam as the ruling religion of the world.
But maybe we could change their minds, if only we could sit down over a spot of tea with them….

Dorothy, wake up!

If not, oh well.