Submitted by Pedro, Dec 8, 2007 10:53

"Christian values are part of the Christian religion. The sentence said 'As the government of the United States is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion.'"

Except that's just impossible if you take that literally. The moral orientation of a man are much tied to the morality of the time and place where he was raised and the Constitution is men-made. See, for instance, the Declaration of Independence: although does not favour no particular religion, it's under a Christian influence - as can be noted on the use of words like "God", "Creator" and "Divine Providence".

The Constitution and other legal documents are not the moral axis of a country. In fact, they reflect - not completely, of course - the morality of the time and place where it was written. While the Constitution does not explicitly favour any religion, it is based on a superset of Christian values - i.e. deliberately written so that Christianity should fit into it but also trying to make enough room to different religious practices. Of course, you can't fit every moral system of the world into one, so things like polygamy (seen as wrong but most Christian traditions, but as ok by many other religions) are not allowed in USA.

"Freedom and equality between all men are definitely enlightenment values. I don't see how they could be considered Christian values whatsoever."

Yes, these are values that were present in Christian doutrine much before enlightenment repackaged them. That's, at least, second hand Christian influence. Consider the concept free-will and the idea that God will judge everybody under the same criteria. Also, Pope Pio II from the Roman Catholic Church, under interpretation of the Christian bible, condemned slavery in 1462 as magnum scelus (major crime).

"Absolutely not true. The phrase is almost always used with some variation of atheists being called non-American."

So it's a misuse of the phrase. As Bush is mistaken and, arguably, against Christian values when he consider as possibly valid the idea of the levels of citizens: Christians and non-Christians. Anyway, his opinion is not relevant here; using he as an argument would be like using Locke's support of slavery as a critic to the entire Enlightenment (notably, mostly against the practice).

Therefore, I stand my point. But, by reading you reply, I see the motto is being abused. Like you, the idea of this motto in the currency is not something I particulary like (I see it as unnecessary). Also, I like Theodore Roosevelt's argument against it because of Christian doutrine forbidding trivial use of God's name.

Well, that's all. I won't reply here anymore (as this isn't the place for long discussions and I feel that I have talked too much), but I'll read any reply you post. As I said before, I'm not an American myself, but I have a deep respect and admiration for USA and I'm happy for being able to learn many things about your country - both from your posts and from the little research I had to do to substantiate my points. Thanks for the polite discussion, forgive me if I barbarized your language and see ya. :)

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.