[HolyHandgernade]

I've stated before there is a difference between the cultural makeup of the nation and the social structure of the nation which is too often confused as the same thing. To that point, I thought it was a good article. There were some things I could nit pick, kowever:

Originally Posted by JimNasium

The establishment clause of the First Amendment forbids a national church.

That is not in the establishment clause, it can be included within the context of the establishment clause, but nowhere does it specifically and exclusively designate a national church. It says religion is not to be established, not a religion or a national church or a state religion, but religion in general. One cannot substitute the phrase a national church for religion in the establishment clause and still make the First Ammendment make grammatical sense. How does one freely express a national church if they just prohibited themselves from establishing one?

Originally Posted by JimNasium

Washington was probably a committed Christian marked by some reticence to speak of his personal beliefs.

Why is this probable? Washington never took communion although he was always respectful towards the established Church of Virginia. One had to be a vestryman of the Church if one wanted to have a social and political stake, the position did not confer an overly religious nature. This is an assumption most Christians hope is true because of the demi-god status Washington holds for the nation.

Originally Posted by JimNasium

Nevertheless, the worldview shared by the founders and the colonists was explicitly and unquestionably Christian. The plausibility structures that made the world sensible to Americans -- the intellectual principles and moral habits that guided their actions -- were clearly based in the Christian tradition and the Bible. In fact, this truth was stated clearly, openly, and honestly by American presidents, political leaders, jurists, and others until recent decades.

Christianity was indeed the cultural background from which most came, but the author should be careful in taking such a liberty. It was in large part due to the horrors of Christianity and its close association with European governments that spurred a sectarian constitutional government. The last line is just weird, I can't think of one President who did not use his religious affiliation, to one degree or another, to build sentiment for his candidacy. It sounds like romaticism to me. According to most historians, the majority of the young nation's population did not attend church or consider themselves overly religious. I think it ought to be a warning when a public official uses his religion to gain political sympathy. Isn't that exactly the kind of thing Jesus taught against saying we should pray to God in private and not use it as a means of popularity?

Originally Posted by JimNasium

This is certainly apparent at Christmas, when most Americans celebrate a specifically Christian holiday.

I always cringe at this argument because it attempts to take away celebrating Christmas from us non-Christians. The only thing inherantly and originally Christian about Christmas is the name itself. Tree trimming, hanging greens, feasting, and gift giving were all winter solctice celebrations long before the Christian era assumed them under the name of Christmas. Even the supposed birthdate of Jesus, Dec. 25th, was used by many various god-men before being ascribed to Jesus. I think any holiday that promotes "peace on earth and goodwill towards men" ought to be celebrated and be able to be celebrated by all men, not just Christians. So when this gets pointed out they wonder why people get wrankled about wishing someone a "Merry Christmas" is because Christians try to take the holiday as all their own, as if they invented it rather than being the latest popular cultural way of expressing it. I wish lots of people a Merry Christmas, but my wish has nothing to do with Christianity in my mind, nor do I plan on attending a Christ's Mass.

I understand the author's point, but most of the dispute isn't among citizens, its between sides concerning religion mixed with government, not culture. Too many people get confused on this issue, like the recent one with the airport. An airport is not a government facility, it should be able to display whatever the administration of the airport want to display. If it was a courthouse, then there is a dispute on Constitutional grounds, but not an airport. So the radicals on the secular side try to overextend the governmental self prohibition while the sectarian radicals attempt to introduce religion in governmental venues. That's why there is conflict. As a citizen, I've never been offended by anyone who wishes me good tidings, no matter what religious or secular sense they want to wrap it in.

-HH