The United States of America was never, in any formal, official, or de jure sense, a Christian nation by design.

Have the majority of Americans always been Christians?  Yep.  Nobody's disputing that.

Did many of the Founding Fathers look upon religious faith, especially Christianity, as a source of virtuous behavior?  Yep.

Has the Bible exerted a significant influence upon all of American culture?  Yup.

But were the overwhelming majority of Founding Fathers "orthodox Christians" who deliberately established a formal Christian nation, as in a Christian State?  Nope, not a hint of any such intention.

The Federalist Papers contain extensive writings by three influential Founding Fathers:  Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and none other than the chief architect of the Constitution himself, James Madison.

Sift through all 85 of these writings, and you will find not one hint of any intention to establish an officially Christian nation.  The Federalist Papers mention not Jesus, not Christ, not the Bible, nor was the Christian faith introduced as a topic of political architecture.  Nowhere is the word "holy" used.  The Federalist #19 -- alone -- mentions Christianity in a passing manner: "In the early ages of Christianity, Germany was occupied by seven distinct nations, who had no common chief."

If the Founding Fathers had intended to establish an officially Christian nation, the failure of the Federalist Papers even to touch upon the subject is an inexplicable abyss of silence.

Neither do the Anti-Federalist papers suggest such a thing; none mention Jesus, Christ, or the Bible; God is mentioned only five times; and just one (#73) notes the existence of state-level formal establishments of religion -- and explicitly contrasts this with the ideal of perfect freedom of conscience:

"Unfortunately, they do not stand single, and this is not the only instance that we find in the constitutions of the different states, of a general principle being expressly declared as a part of the natural rights of the citizens, and afterwards being as expressly contradicted in the practice. Thus we find it declared in every one of our bills of rights, "that there shall be a perfect liberty of conscience, and that no sect shall ever be entitled to a preference over the others." Yet in Massachusetts and Maryland, all the officers of government, and in Pennsylvania the members of the legislature, are to be of the Christian religion..."

Not only is the sheer absence of any stated intent to form a Christian nation a compelling argument against it, but had ours ever been an officially Christian nation, the National Reform Association -- a group that still exists today -- would never have felt the need to press for a Constitutional amendment that would have formally recognized this as a Christian nation.

I mean, why would this organization -- in the 19th century -- seek passage of a Constitutional amendment to establish what had already been the case?

Of course.  It never was the case that this was a formally Christian nation -- so the National Reform Association sought to make it so.

But wait; there's more.

The Treaty of Tripoli reads, in part:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

This treaty was unanimously approved on the Senate floor on June 7, 1797 and signed by President John Adams.

James Madison, the Constitution's chief designer, can hardly be construed as an advocate of a formal religious state.  His famous Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments says it all:

"1. Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty to the General Authority; much more must every man who becomes a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no mans right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.

2. Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body. The latter are but the creatures and vicegerents of the former... "

it goes on and on.  The above was only the beginning.

And just how "orthodox" were many of our Founding Fathers?  George Washington, oft quoted as a fount of Christian government opinion, was the Worshipful Master of his own Masonic Lodge.  Not only were the Freemasons, then and now, strong supporters of church/state separation, but Freemasonry has long been deemed incompatible with orthodox Christianity.  Of all these allegedly orthodox Christian founders, Washington was obviously not one of them.

So, folks, there you have it.  Have at me.  :-)  All of my points, I have substantiated by direct links.  Nobody's posts will be deleted for offering a rebuttal or challenge to my position.

"No union exists between church and state, and perfect freedom of opinion is guaranteed to all sects and creeds." - President James K. Polk, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1845.

Here's an interesting story of intolerance for free speech that has a close parallel on what some would consider the "other side of the political fence":

http://www.contracostatimes...

"War display has varied meanings

"The objections to the crosses erected across from the Lafayette BART station are very puzzling. How can people who are so supportive of troops going to Iraq to establish democracy find the exercise of free speech so offensive?"

And http://edition.cnn.com/2006...

"Hillside crosses marking fallen soldiers stir debate

"LAFAYETTE, California (AP) -- Hundreds of white wooden crosses planted on a quiet suburban hillside have prompted a debate over whether they honor or exploit the memory of troops killed in Iraq.

Jeff Heaton, who along with local peace group members started putting up the crosses in early November, sees the effort as a simple tribute.

"It seemed like it would be a touching way to make people aware of the true costs of the war," he said.

But to others, the display, on private property opposite a commuter train station and visible from the heavily traveled highway to San Francisco, is an affront that uses personal grief for political ends."

And more info, not quoted here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-b...

http://www.sacbee.com/110/s...

Now, here's the parallel.

Does that field of crosses remind you of anything?

Something each January?

On church yards?

Abortion stops a beating heart?

That's it.  It reminds me of those fields of crosses erected by pro-life advocates to memorialize the millions of unborn babies killed since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision in 1973.

I, for one, can't get upset over the church displays, because the pro-lifer in me will never die.  It has simply become more pragmatic and realistic, leavened by age and, I would like to think, a better view of the bigger picture.

But among people who are insulted by these churches' political statements each January, I haven't heard any demands by abortion-rights supporters to curtail these churches' free speech.

Someone tell me, have there been acts of vandalism against these pro-life displays over the years?  Has anyone tried to suppress these churches' rights to free speech?

Or is the desire to suppress controversial speech a one-sided ailment in our culture?