When Washington Crossed the Delaware on Christmas 1776, It Wasn't in the Name of Christian Nationalism
America was not founded to be a theocracy and it should not strive to become one.
I grew up a few miles from where George Washington and his Continental Army crossed the Delaware River to launch a surprise attack on Hessian mercenary soldiers stationed in Trenton, N.J. Down on his luck, Washington launched this audacious military strike on Christmas, sending three groups (only one made it) across the ice-choked waters on small cargo boats during a ferocious storm.
In my teen years, a friend and I re-enacted the crossing in his canoe. The river is only 300-feet wide at the crossing point and we attempted it on a summer day, but we mangled the metal boat on some rocks. Anyway, Washington's maneuvers—memorialized by a German-American artist in 1851—was a turning point in the history of our country.
As America prepares for its Semiquincentennial—a tongue-twisting term referring to its 250th birthday—we'll be hearing much about the revolution, our history and the nation's future. The think tank I work for, the R Street Institute, is hosting myriad related events as an opportunity "to reinvigorate the American creed of self-government and principled pluralism in an era of political division and institutional distrust."
American democracy is going through some trials, as we deal with a ruling party that's committed to disruption, savors the obliteration of long-standing democratic norms and is committed to a leader who often acts like a wannabe despot. We've also seen the rise of discourse on the right and left that is openly dismissive of democracy and plays footsie with authoritarianism.
This isn't entirely new, but it is a new twist in the modern era. One of the most noxious ideas, which is gaining traction among some MAGA devotees, is the concept of Christian nationalism. It's the idea America was founded as a Christian nation and should operate if not as theocracy, at least as a close cousin to one. Its defenders claim the term is just a "dog whistle" pushed by liberals to discredit Christianity in the public realm, but that's mostly nonsense.
Christian nationalists, some of whom are influential with members of the Trump administration, don't hide their views. One prominent pastor, Douglas Wilson, calls himself "a theocratic libertarian" in a New York Times interview. He says "if we outlaw something, I want a Bible verse, ideally the Ten Commandments." But when it comes to, say, the "manufacturing and sale of widgets, or the thoughts a person thinks, or the beliefs that they have, I'm a libertarian." That sounds contradictory, but I suppose they'll outlaw things based on their read of the Bible, but will leave us alone economically.
Wilson, who admits he's not against stoning adulterers (although he's not necessarily in favor of it, either), is one of the least-outrageous of their lot, with some calling for repealing the right of women to vote. It's a fringe movement, we're assured, but it would be more reassuring if the secretary of defense didn't repost sympathetic videos. A lot of this does sound like America's Taliban. Christianity is an international religion, so I find "Christian nationalism" a heresy. But I'll leave theology to others.
We're seeing the re-emergence of an age-old debate. Most people see America as an experiment in classical liberalism, whereby the founders created a system of limited government, religious pluralism and liberty. Religious leaders are free to spread their message through the culture—but not to take control of the levers of power and base lawmaking on their sectarian Bible interpretations. The Constitution protects everyone's natural rights, with its main purpose limiting the sphere of government—not implementing rules to assure proper religious observance.
There really is no other way to seriously read our Constitution, but many religious people still argue the founders were Christians who envisioned a Christian nation. Some of the founders were indeed devout Christians and these folks cherry-pick Christian quotations from them. The Heritage Foundation, which has recently taken a nationalist detour, argued in 2011 that the most-reasonable read is the founders simply were "influenced by Christian ideas."
Indeed. I'm a Christian who believes our faith centers on kindness, charity, redemption and free will rather than empowering tribunals to decide who gets publicly stoned or flogged for violating some biblical admonition. Consider the madness that will ensue if religious interpretation becomes the legal standard. Then again, the hilarious fights at city councils between Calvinists and Catholic integralists over the proper manifestation of God's will might be worth the price of admission.
Christian nationalists often argue that America cannot survive as a multicultural, multi-religious nation. To which I'll quote a 1788 rebuttal from George Washington: "I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong." As we approach the 250th anniversary of our founding, Americans must not let Washington's brilliant legacy and the nation's ideals get hijacked by wackadoodles.
This column was first published in The Orange County Register.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
"American democracy is going through some trials, as we deal with a ruling party that's committed to disruption, savors the obliteration of long-standing democratic norms and is committed to a leader who often acts like a wannabe despot."
Franklin D. Roosevelt has not been President for 80 years now, Mr. Greenhut.
Oh wait, it is now anyone who wants to disrupt the federal leviathan the new Dealers created who are against "democratic norms" which apparently the alphabet bureaucracies are.
"Consider the madness that will ensue if religious interpretation becomes the legal standard."
You mean like people trying to put into law that intact males have a right to use female facilities?
"Christian nationalism" is a bit of a bogeyman compared to what has been going on that Greenhut does not pearl clutch like this about.
"Christian nationalism" is a bit of a bogeyman compared to what has been going on that Greenhut does not pearl clutch like this about.
The people you're clutching pearls about are far more remote from the levers of power than the Christian Nationalists you evidently favour.
Many of the people I am worried about hold levers of power, and you have no idea about what I favor.
He’s a Marxist that hates Trump. Not much else there is to know about him.
Yes, there is: He's a blood-thirsty piece of lefty shit who favors government murder of the un-armed:
SRG2 12/23/23
“Then strode in St Ashli, clad in a gown of white samite and basking in celestial radiance, walking calmly and quietly through the halls of Congress as police ushered her through doors they held open for her, before being cruelly martyred for her beliefs by a Soros-backed special forces officer with a Barrett 0.50 rifle equipped with dum-dum bullets.”
Slimy piece of work who should fuck off and die.
That’s inclusive of his Marxism. Along with a whole host of other evil, malignant things.
And yes, like all Marxists, he should face capital punishment. Then he can be a good commie.
I always wish leftists would explain the democratic norms that are threatened by the autocrats he claims are in charge. Would those include locking down the economy, forced injection of experimental drugs, forced purchase of medical insurance, 40 trillion dollar debt, rampant fraud at every level of government, forcing high school girls to shower with adult men, mutilating children without parental consent, releasing violent criminals to continue preying on the innocent, a nation without borders, academia completely controlled by socialists, censorship at home and from abroad, endless wars, endless devaluation of the currency, lawfare against political opponents, refusal to hold honest elections and, I'm sure I missed a lot more. We live with a government and culture that are badly in need of massive disruption and the free minds left are ready to see some norms obliterated. Of course Greenhut is not among them. He lies awake at night terrified that some city councilman somewhere will organize a Christian Nationalist army and overthrow California. Or something.
Since Clinton:
* The US has expanded the deficit more under Republican administrations than Democrat.
* The US has started more major wars under Republican administrations.
* The US has expanded the surveillance state more under Republican administrations.
* The US is now engaging in more blatant censorship, with the president suing media outlets, the FTC threatening them, the president dictating who should be the editor to approve a merger, etc.
I will give you the others to some degree. Yes, Dems are shit. But don't pretend your party is the party of freedom and prosperity.
"But don't pretend your party is the party of freedom and prosperity."
This is exactly what s/he's done. 100% reliance on a political party headed by an aged celebrity to push a vague and self contradictory hodge podge of an agenda.
Walz +4
Which - even if true - is a GIANT improvement over the alternative.
What are you counting as major wars?
"The US is now engaging in more blatant censorship, with the president suing media outlets, the FTC threatening them, the president dictating who should be the editor to approve a merger, etc."
Suing is not censorship, and the courts will decide if there is any merit to them. There have been news media which has engaged in deceptive and defamatory reporting. Yet you are grasping at straws if your insinuation is that Bari Weiss was hired at Trump's insistence.
The threat to sue is often enough to stifle unwanted speech. Especially if the suer is wealthier than the suee.
For major wars, the most recent examples are Iraq and Afghanistan, both lengthy and expensive, the architect of both was Paul Wolfowitz, defense department official appointed by Bush. It was also Bush who ordered the invasions. For Democrats, you've got the Libya and Yemen civil wars, neither of which can be classified as major unless you're a European worried about the massive numbers of migrants engendered by these conflicts.
The Democrats are dramatically more fond of Bush than Republicans are.
Just sayin'.
And nice to see you oppose slander or libel laws. Just smear away, facts be damned, eh?
"The Democrats are dramatically more fond of Bush than Republicans are."
Welcome to the land of the uniparty. The Democrats didn't need Bush. They had the Clintons.
"And nice to see you oppose slander or libel laws"
You are being willfully obtuse to avoid addressing my point. If you have a good faith argument, please present it. Otherwise don't waste my time.
So, you support slander and libel laws, but feel USING them is stifling the press.
Got it.
Reasonable
Doubling down on obtuseness isn't persuasive. Surely you can do better.
No, no, his take on your comments is right on. You obviously preferred things the way they were, when republicans never hit back.
The Republicans have been engaging in unnecessary wars and censorship since day 1 of the Lincoln administration. Throw in mass murder and ethnic cleansing if you like.
Stating Trump is stifling the press by suing them when they slander him or engage in quite blatant election interference is evidence that you prefer slander and libel.
I never mentioned Trump. I mentioned Paul Wolfowitz and George Bush. And Trump isn't suing the Press. He's threatening to sue, which is more effective at suppressing criticism. You supposedly thinking I'd support threats of frivolous lawsuits is again you being willfully obtuse. Why don't you work on a new schtick? You can do better. Really. Drop the pose and just be yourself.
"...And Trump isn't suing the Press. He's threatening to sue, which is more effective at suppressing criticism..."
Yes, he is suing and you misspelled LYING, slimy pile of lefty shit.
"I never mentioned Trump..."
See "...And Trump isn't suing the Press..."
Like turd, you are too stupid to remember the lies you just told.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-public-officials-and-the-media.html
"The Republicans have been engaging in unnecessary wars and censorship since day 1 of the Lincoln administration. "
The Lincoln Administration did not start the American Civil War. Jefferson Davis ordered GT Beauregard to attack Fort Sumter -- over the advice of some of his closest advisors. And that was five weeks after Lincoln was sworn in as President.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-public-officials-and-the-media.html
“Otherwise don’t waste my time.”
Lol. You poor victim. What a doosh.
"...Otherwise don't waste my time..."
He doesn't want the competition, he's already managing well on his own:
"mtrueman
May.23.2022 at 10:29 am
[…]As long as humans are operating the reactors, an accident is a potential, regardless of the safety of the reactors. It's the human element where the danger comes in...”
He wants smug, imbecilic apes like himself at the controls.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-public-officials-and-the-media.html
"Major" is doing some heavy lifting for that slimy pile of lying lefty shit.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/defamation-public-officials-and-the-media.html
Look at sarc continue this tired talking point even as he demands trump ask congress for everything. Including cuts.
Only retard leftists try this retarded argument, ignoring who controls the legislative branch. Because sarc is a retarded leftist.
You really do need to focus. Nepalis focused on anti corruption, got hundreds of thousands to take to the streets and tossed out the government. You've got a laundry list of complaints that stretches from the serious, 40 trillion $US debt, to the farcical, children being forced to undergo sex changes. How many are marching on those issues? Zero.
Republicans have jobs to go to.
Luckily George Washington wasn't a Republican.
Were he alive today, he would be.
Were he alive today, you couldn't slander him with impunity.
And if you were in my presence, you would learn invaluable lessons. And at least what I say is true.
You may fuck off now,
"locking down the economy"
Trump was the President who did that. It saved millions of lives. Nothing destroys an economy faster than mass deaths.
"forced injection of experimental drugs"
The vaccines were not experimental. They had been proven effective -- and remarkably safe -- in huge randomized clinical trials.
And without forced injection of a much dangerous substance -- smallpox inoculation -- you would be singing "God Save the King" rather than "The Star Spangled Banner". It was George Washington himself who gave that order. And coercive public health measures against civilians to save lives during a pandemic date to George Washington's Presidency, in the 1793 yellow fever pandemic. Oh it was an American educated Cuban physician, Dr. Carlos Finlay, who finally figured out how yellow fever was transmitted. He should have received a Nobel Prize for that, but then as now the Powers That Be hated people from Latin America.
"forced purchase of medical insurance" was supported by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. They realized that people without health insurance are parasites, although they didn't use the term.
"40 trillion dollar debt" thanks to the Bush and Trump tax cuts. Clinton had four years of surpluses and there was actually talk about paying off the national debt. But helping oligarchs was more important to Republicans.
"rampant fraud at every level of government" True, the level corruption of the Trump Administration has been unparalleled in US history. The previous record holders, Grant and Harding, did not personally enrich themselves, only their cronies. Trump and his family are the Grifters In Chief.
'forcing high school girls to shower with adult men" you mean when Trump forced his own entry into the dressing room of the teenaged girls in the beauty pageant he owned.
"mutilating children without parental consent" Parents give consent for these operations.
"releasing violent criminals to continue preying on the innocent"
Like the two of the worst drug kingpins in the world that Trump pardoned.
"a nation without borders"
Hilarious. When Biden was President, hundreds of thousands of illegal border crossers were arrested every month. But the US did have open borders for over a century after 1776.
" academia completely controlled by socialists"
I have been in academia for three decades and I am not sure I have ever met a single socialist in academia. If anything, the oligarch donors call the shots.
" censorship at home and from abroad" like Trump threatening and filing lawsuits against media companies that offend him.
" endless wars" like Trump's plans to invade Panama, Mexico, Canada, and Greenland, and his actual acts of war against Venezuela.
"endless devaluation of the currency" When Trump took office in 2017, the Euro was worth US$1.07. When he left office in 2021, it was worth $1.21. When Biden left office in 2025, it was worth $1.04. Today it is worth $1.18. Trump has actually been pushing devaluation.
"lawfare against political opponents" like Trump's failed prosecutions of James Comey and Letitia James.
"refusal to hold honest elections " like Trump's insistence on gerrymandering.
"Trump was the President who did that. It saved millions of lives. Nothing destroys an economy faster than mass deaths."
charliehall proves he is full of shit. Again.
Walz +10
You must be copying and pasting pretty furiously today, eh comrade?
Walz +11
Still not sure what this is supposed to mean. Is it a general hard-right thing or a Don’t Look thing?
Tim Walz is the new standard for Democrat retardation. So Walz +/- 0 represents retardation equivalent to the average level displayed by Governor Walz. With a range of -10 to +10 (and occasionally all the way to +11).
Leftist commentary is now rated using this scale.
I tried to recalibrate my retard detector but when it reaches Walz+11 it locks up. I'm sure Amazon has more advanced units but tariffs have pushed prices up beyond the ability of average consumers to afford.
There was no national lockdown and the state lockdowns, as proven over and over again, did not save lives.
No point in reading the rest of your tripe when you start off with that.
To quote a famous saying "Mr. Greenhut is an arsonist in a field of strawmen"
Hate to break it to you, but the first wave of people to come here were kind of a religious cult.
So before the Puritans arrived, the land had no people in it? LOL
I've read that some of the writings of the Founding Fathers made it look that way. Thomas Jefferson specifically... It was like the Red-Skins were just animals like foxes and squirrels or some such... The land was "empty" waiting to be "tamed" and "developed", etc.
Tribalism (same as nationalism) runs deep! Many tribes used to call themselves "the people", while others apparently were non-people. And now, despots and wannabe-despots aspire to cults of personality, such that THEY are "the people"! Twatever I say, is twat "My people" say! I AM the Tribe!
Who were total atheist libertarians, right?
Who is the "who" here, Chemo Sabe? The Natives were "total", yes, and the Pilgrims were "atheist libertarians", yes! Butt NONE of them were ALL of these things!
(Before You ask, I intend to write more clearly than PervFected YOU, so here Royal You go, Your Majesty: The Native Americans were "TOTAL" FOOLS for SNOT immediately evicting, to El Salvador or elsewhere to be tortured without trails or even basic fact-finding, the Magic-Paperless invading illegal sub-humans who soiled their shores, AND their Blood and Soil!)
Oh, how clever, slimy pile of shit.
Indians, who sacrificed children, werent religious shrike?
Not sure if you're talking about the US or Reason commenters.
It’s because you are a dumbass.
Hey. Sarc lifted the veil again!
I wonder how close he gets to killing himself at Christmas every year?
Hate to break it to you, but the Puritans were far from even the first Europeans to arrive. Most came looking for wealth. Sure they used God as an excuse to loot and plunder but they were no saints. Kind of like the assholes using religion as an excuse today to act without virtue and be dickheads.
I never said they were saints. And if the puritans weren’t driven by religious beliefs, what did drive them?
The urge to survive and reproduce, like just about ALL living things? And the urge to blame YOUR Tribe and Glorify MY Tribe, like all so-called "advanced" social beings, who've mostly still SNOT really, truly grown beyond their animal past yet?
Walz +6
Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!
So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…
Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:
Hi Fantastically Talented Author:
Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.
At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.
Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .
Thank PervFected You! -Reason Staff
Zzzzzz
Gotta incinerate the SQRL.
I never said they were saints. And if the puritans weren’t driven by religious beliefs, what did drive them?
My point was the Vikings, the Spanish, the French, the Portuguese and countless others were here long before the Puritans and were not part of any religious cult. Unless you are so obtuse to call the prevailing religion of the time a cult. Which you probably do, because you are mendacious asshole.
Or the lefty assholes like you promoting socialism as a common good?
Fuck off and die, asswipe.
I've never "promoted socialism as a common good" you useless, geriatric, cocksucking troglodyte. Go gargle Jesse's nut with your made-up fantasy bullshit.
Yet you always side with the socialists, and attack anyone trying to squelch it.
I never side with a socialist, fuckface, but keep tossing Sevo's salad. Maybe he'll give you the rimjob you've been hoping for, asshole.
I have direct ancestors who came to Virginia over a decade before the Puritans arrived in Massachusetts. They were illegal immigrants; they didn't apply for visas from the Powhatan Confederacy.
“ Hate to break it to you, but the first wave of people to come here were kind of a religious cult.”
They were from a fairly large number of disfavored religious cults. Which is part of the reason why opposition to religious government was important to many Founders.
The religion of the Constitution (and of America) is the Enlightenment. Our country is an Enlightenment country. Our founding ideals are Enlightenment ideals. Our belief that individual rights are an inalienable element of being a living human is an Enlightenment belief.
And the Enlightenment was highly (and justifiably) suspicious and distrustful of religion in government. They had no problem reconciling a personal Christian faith with an opposition to Christian government. Religious freedom and a secular government is what they created, intentionally and knowingly.
Some of the most important Founding Fathers were heretics and a few were infidels.
Cool story bro. Got anymore democrat fan fiction you want to puke up?
"The Age of Reason; Being an Investigation of True and Fabulous Theology" by Thomas Paine - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Reason . Paine was a deist.
I'm not sure if one could characterize Paine as a lefty. But, Paine was arguably the one who touched off the American Revolution with his pamphlets Common Sense (1776) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Sense and The American Crisis (1776–1783) - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_American_Crisis
That’s really not where Charlie was going.
"...from George Washington: 'I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong.' "
George Washington would join the MAGA shit-list along with Mike Pence! Asylum for rapefugees and illegal sub-humans!?!? From shithole nations, at that?!? How DARE Washington engage in HERESY?!?!?
"Hang Mike Pence" swill now be joined by "Hang George Washington"!!!!
There weren’t 8 billion people on the planet in those days, you retarded squirrel.
Keep on living in the past. It’s what progs do best.
The 8 billion that we Earthlings sustain today, are sustained by technologies FAR more advanced than those of 250 years ago. Keep on living in the past. It’s twat illegal-subhuman-haters do best. And the BEST "technology" that Ye MAGA-maggots PervFectly have to offer... Is the ancient Tribalism and Leader-Worshit-Cultism that gives us "Hang Mike Pence"!
Burn the SQRL.
Hey SCROTUS...
Burn the Reich-stag, and then blame the Jews, the illegal sub-humans, or Mike Pence!!! Yeah, THAT'S shit; Hang Mike Pence! Shit is the MAGA-maggot way!!!
Yep, gotta burn that rabid SQRL.
I think Sqrlsy is a persona the Reason author's pass around to comment on their own stories in as unhinged a manner as possible to drum up clicks and comments.
Well, the policies of the left, forcing the "Christian" values of giving to the poor, and freeing the prisoners, and caring for the sick, seem more in line with your thesis than the right.
Of course Christ was talking about individual actions, inspired by Christian Love, rather than the force of arms of the government.
(And of course, the left is globalist, not nationalist)
I think you may have been in California too long.
So you’re saying the Right isn’t inspired by Christian Love? Well, duh. They aren’t into love and compassion and care for their fellow humans.
I love it when you Marxist atheist fags start raving about Christianity, and present yourselves as an authority on Jesus and what he would do. While simultaneously expressing hatred and contempt for Christianity.
And I say this as an agnostic.
While ignoring which party tends to be more generous with its own money rather than someone else's.
It’s not Christian Love to force people to do things YOU think are charitable or “Christian”, to the extent that conservatives engage in such acts, they are wrong, but it’s disingenuous to pretend the Left doesn’t engage in that moral busybodyism at all much larger scale.
They really think it’s generous of them to confiscate the wealth of others and hand out a few crumbs form the table while consuming most of it themselves. Solyndra is an example of their ‘generosity’. Or the $8 billion that Tampon Tim, Ilhan Omar, and Keith Ellison stole in Minnesota.
How about that. You think Trump/MAGA is a christian-puritan dictator? /s
What evidence you got? A few insignificant arguments at a city council.
So... Absolutely nothing.
Make a list of all the 'Christian Nationalist' laws passed.
Now make a list of all the '[Na]tional So[zi]alist' laws passed.
So really all you've really got is a case of TDS and Leftard propaganda trying to paint a picture of what doesn't exist.
And BTW: "American democracy?" - The USA is a *Constitutional* Republic.
Amazing how fast you find that Anti-Democratic *Constitution* in the pursuit to conquer your 'anthill' of 'Christian Nationalist' alarm.
You've got merit on religion has no-place in legislation. You just don't have hardly any beef on your bun.
And lets go further and examine that pebble of beef. It mostly resides in Commie Indoctrination camps for Kids (Communist / Socialist) structures. Something MAGA/Trump wants to get rid-of (School-Choice for all). So even your pebble of beef is but a consequence of leftard-socialists doing.
Your right, George Washington never spoke about God's role in America.
YOU'RE right, right-wing wrong-nut-slut, in that George Washington never spoke about "Let's Hang Mike Pence" ass a way to peace, prosperity, and God's Swill!
(Even the Founding Fathers sometimes fell short of MAGA's Full Glory.)
Sadly, God isn’t striking down Marxists for us, so we need to do it ourselves.
Maybe G-d is a libertarian and grants them political freedom.
Which supports my premise that we must strike them down ourselves.
https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/thanksgiving-proclamation-of-1789
Yeah, let's now worry about all the socialist getting elected, it's the Christians that are the threat to the REPUBLIC.
From G. Washington's inaugural address:
Who are you going to believe? Washington or Greenhut?
Note that Washington didn't (here at least) refer to Christ or Christianity. "God" belongs to MANY people (and their religions) other than Christianity. I am told that many of the Founding Fathers were "Deists" rather than Christians, strictly speaking.
I also see no reference to the Messiah, Christ, Jesus, Yeshua, or even Chuy.
Because you are an idiot and have no understanding of the English language or Christianity.
Almighty Being
His benediction
Great Author
Invisible Hand
All allusions to the Christian God regular church goers would recognize.
There are many monotheistic religions that aren't Christian. What distinguishes Christianity from Islam or Deism, for example, is the prominence of Christ, whose birthday we celebrate today. Washington takes great pains to avoid mentioning the Christian god, likely as a sop to the Deists, many of whom didn't believe in the divinity of Jesus. Hence all these inoffensive euphemisms.
Read the text carefully. Not just what it says, but what it doesn't say.
He didn't you aren't a mendacious cunt. Must be true.
It's true that General Washingmachine made no reference to Christ in the text. You are the one who chose it, you shouldn't need me to point this out to you. Learn to read with more discrimination is my advice. The text undermines the very point you were trying to make. This is why you have to resort to childish name calling and vulgar insults, and on one of the holiest days of the Christian calendar, no less.
I love it when bitter Marxist atheists lecture everyone about Christianity.
I love it when people who are triggered claim to love the thing that triggers them.
Is that your thing? Being triggered? Is that what you come here for? That would make sense. You do love being regularly humiliated here by all of us.
No, no and no.
You do acknowledge that you’re largely a vapid leftist buffoon who gets slapped down here daily, right?
Vapid is an apt description. I would also include 'boring' and 'dull' but those are personal references, I suppose. I found the commentary so uninteresting that I grey-boxed this idiot a long time ago.
Want to learn the difference between Christians and muzzies? Go to an Islamic country, pass out free bacon and host a gay Pride event an draw Muhammad. You will learn the difference quickly
Even the "Muzzies" have yet to bomb and kill, without warning and without a "fair fight", 100 some peaceful travelers upon the high seas. Certainly not in recent years. Today I am peacefully sailing the high seas. The next second, without warnings of any kind, a bomb or missile (from so-called "Christians") drops and kills me! This is twat YOUR Jesus would do, right?
(My Jesus was a different kind of being, than that, BTW.)
Even the "Muzzies" have yet to bomb and kill, without warning and without a "fair fight", 100 some peaceful travelers upon the high seas.
Yes, they only hijacked airliners and crashed them into buildings killing 3,000.
They followed the example of Timmy McVeigh, a "good Christian right-winger", a white man, and a military veteran! WHERE is the right-wing chorus to send white men and military veterans to El Salvador to be TORTURED without trials, to make them PAY for the sins of Timmy McVeigh, anyway?
(I do SNOT mean to make EVIL smuggestions to MAGA-maggots; this is just a thought exercise! PLEASE do SNOT forward my smuggestion to Orange Caligula, lest Shit and His Queen Spermy Daniels actually takes shit up!)
Idiot.
Smug asshole!
Oooops, I take that BACK!!!!
You resent the hell out of the fact that many other people are flat-out, better, more honest people than you are, right? More “live and let live”, and WAAAY less authoritarian?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/in-love-and-war/201706/why-some-people-resent-do-gooders
From the conclusion to the above…
“These findings suggest that we don’t need to downplay personal triumphs to avoid negative social consequences, as long as we make it clear that we don’t look down on others as a result.”
SQRLSY back here now… So, I do SNOT want you to feel BAD about YOU being an authorShitarian asshole, and me NOT being one! PLEASE feel GOOD about You being an evil, lying asshole! You do SNOT need to push me (or other REAL lovers of personal liberty) down, so that You can feel better about being an asshole! EVERYONE ADORES You for being that asshole that You are, because, well, because You are YOU! FEEL that self-esteem, now! Feel shit DEEPLY!!!
The Houthis and the Somali pirates have done just that. Trump is exactly like them. A murderous warmonger.
Want to learn the difference between Christians and Christians? Go to Northern Ireland and pass out free bacon, condoms and pictures of Oliver Cromwell.
Oh, how clever from the smug and stupid!
Cromwell was far from unique in being one of many 17th century Christian genocidists.
I thought Invisible Hand was a nod to free-market capitalist economics, but in this context . . .
Washington is only one individual expressing his sentiments. A better indicator of religious conception would be in the founding documents, themselves.
There is only one place in the founding documents where the word "God" is used. That is in the first paragraph and sentence of the Declaration where the terms "Nature's God" are used, not the god of Abraham, or the god of Jesus, or the god of Mohammed, or the Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan gods, rather Nature's God, a deistic god.
"the first paragraph and sentence of the Declaration"
Written by someone who was definitely NOT a Christian!
Bruce, fair point regarding principle. Supporting your point, the Declaration's famous second sentence emphasized that "We" (the People) "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." Its last paragraph (sentence) emphasized
"appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the Rectitude of our Intentions . . . And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
The original Constitution raised the subject of God to emphasize in Article VI that personal beliefs about religion are irrelevant to good government so "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."
"Oh, eternal and everlasting God, direct my thoughts, words and work. Wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the Lamb and purge my heart by Thy Holy Spirit. Daily, frame me more and more in the likeness of Thy son, Jesus Christ, that living in Thy fear, and dying in Thy favor, I may in thy appointed time obtain the resurrection of the justified unto eternal life. Bless, O Lord, the whole race of mankind and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and Thy son, Jesus Christ." ~ George Washington
See my comment above. A better indicator of the founders' sentiments would be in the first paragraph of the Declaration where the term "Nature's God" is used, not the God of Abraham, not the God of Jesus, not the God of Mohammed, rather the God of Nature, a deist god.
The founders scrupulously avoided any specific religious beliefs in the founding documents because those very documents forbid a national religion, although state religion was not forbidden to the states. It's not really debatable that most of the founders were of the Christian persuasion. But if you prefer deist I'm cool with that. Kinda generic but maybe distinguished them from the Pagans? And now that I think about it, how long before Pagan Nationalism becomes a Reason obsession?
"most of the founders were of the Christian persuasion"
Many were heretics.
Charlie, isn't everybody who says they believe in Judaism, Christianity or Islam a heretic to somebody else who says they believe in the same or a closely-related religion or denomination? Wasn't that very fact and its relevance (and the irrelevance of personal religious beliefs) the reason for a particular rule in our original Constitution (Art. VI): "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States"?
It Wasn't in the Name of Christian Nationalism…
What an ass you are
It was an ass that bore Mother Mary on her way to giving birth to Jesus.
There are also many-many asses here in the cummentariat, and they bore me ass well! Especially Double-Plus the Orange Caligula worshitters!
The think tank I work for, the R Street Institute, is hosting…
Greenhut is an ass that bores me
I find the idea of Greenhut working for a think tank endlessly amusing.
Yeah, that must be a real brain trust.
SCROTUS can tell us ALL about brain RUST, which has frozen and locked ALL of shit's brain-gears and brain-PAP-smears!
(Oil-can... Oil can LUBE Your Pervfectly locked-up, rusted-over brain-gears, my dear!!! TRY shit, Ye will LIKE shit; Oil CAN!!! Oil = an open mind, which, sad to say, is a ferriner cuntcept to moist MAGA-maggots.)
Cremate the SQRL alive.
An ancestor of yours perhaps?
You would know a boring ass.
It was definitely 100% in the name of Nationalism, and done by Christians while espousing Christianity
It was, however, in the name of nationalism, Greenhut. And to expel those who would oppress us.
Merry Christmas everyone.
Dunno if you have it but "Washinton's Crossing" (Fischer) places the campaign in context and makes clear it was very courageous (not to say desperate) decision and a true turning point in the Revolution; the follow up in Princetown was inspired and drove the redcoats out of most of New Jersey.
>>"American democracy is going through some trials, as we deal with a ruling party that's committed to disruption, savors the obliteration of long-standing democratic norms and is committed to a leader who often acts like a wannabe despot."
Roosevelt hasn't been President for a long time. Obama and Biden are out of office. Who are you complaining about?
Clinton? Oh wait, you don't want to talk about Clinton right now;)
"Who are you complaining about?"
Present tense continuous 'is going through' should be a dead giveaway.
Or an admission that you are ignorant of the English language. Tough decision, asshole.
Then you’re as dumb as Greenhut.
>>In my teen years, a friend and I re-enacted the crossing in his canoe. The river is only 300-feet wide at the crossing point and we attempted it on a summer day, but we mangled the metal boat on some rocks.
I will take things that did not happen for $200 Alex.
A lot of people do this. It isn’t a particularly wide or swift point in the river. A lot harder at Christmas than in the summer, granted.
No, a lot of people do not do this. Pretty much no one does.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/vp6pvzWuynEB3gjw9?g_st=ac
Looks like a pretty decent current.
“ No, a lot of people do not do this. Pretty much no one does.”
And you think this because … you live there and can see? Personally I am basing it on a few friends who did it (two different groups, two different times) when they were in high school and told me it wasn’t unusual (which was what I thought at the time).
Perhaps that is wrong, but I doubt you have a better source of information.
I will take things that did not happen for $200 Alex.
This is the generous interpretation.
The more accurate interpretation is that it didn't happen *and* Greenhut is an abject retard who doesn't understand the difference between feet and yards.
I don't know how much of their donors' money Reason wastes on licensing Greenhut's brand of dishonest-retardation-in-print, but they should stop.
Even here;
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Capital+City+Yacht+Club/@40.1843836,-74.7521152,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x89c15a2768e96fc3:0xb34f6ffa20040e29!8m2!3d40.1843836!4d-74.7495403!16s%2Fg%2F11c48tbdcr?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTIwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
By the Capital City Yacht Club (eyeball's glance of the narrowest point near where the crossing was documented) the river is closer to ~760 ft. wide than 300 ft. wide.
This, IMO, is worse than "mostly peaceful protestors" and "At $5B on his Presidential campaign, he could've given every American $1M." combined.
Even the idea that Greenhut crossed during a drought or during a celestial alignment at low tide or whatever, is still pretty incredulous given that he was aware enough of Washington's crossing to know it was covered in ice.
If ChatGPT or Claude spit out hallucinatory stupidity this bad, they'd discard the results and retrain it.
Persecuted *and* virtuous Greenhut. Not just the persecuted.
Pop quiz: what differentiates libertarians from libertines?
The libertines are honest, at least with regards to Reason "libertarians".
Libertarians believe in personal freedom and accountability.
Libertines believe in personal freedom from accountability.
Is that why you write under a pseudonym?
I’m not accountable to you, pinko. Amd I have no doubt so,e of you Marxist scumbags would dox me. Which isn’t accountability.
It’s terrorism. Which is what you democrats are all about, eh comrade?
As long as you hide behind a pseudonym you're not accountable to anyone. You have nothing to worry about. Your comments are banal, boring and substance free. You're not worth effort it would take to dox you.
I am not a Democrat. Genocide Joe Biden drove the last nail into the coffin for me. I am not a Marxist and I am not your comrade. You seem too much of a corporate/Trump stooge and cowardly ass licker than I would like.
"...You have nothing to worry about. Your comments are banal, boring and substance free..."
And far, far better than your drivel, asswipe.
My comments are far more thoughtful, clear and concise than any stream of thought you’ve had in your entire life. Deep down you know that, and it enrages you. As all you are is Marxist garbage who trolls your betters here.
And again, I am in no way accountable to Marxist filth like you. You however, are accountable for the treasonous ,racist propaganda you spew on a daily basis. Just like your fellow travelers in antifa are accountable for their terrorism and insurrectionist activities under US federal law.
But you’re too stupid to grasp those concepts, right comrade?
There’s a trend where people tend to commit suicide at the holidays. Perhaps you should get on the bandwagon and find out what all the fuss is about.
As I say, if you want to bluster and insult, have the courage do it under your own name. Hiding behind a pseudonym is cowardice. Encouraging fellow commenters to commit suicide is a breach of terms of service and worthy of a flag of censure.
...says the person posting under a pseudonym...
And that is why you hide behind a psuedonym?
Forget the idea of Clinton as America's first Black president- Trump's Claremont and Hillsdale familiars have less in common with the Founder's views of God and Man than those of the Catholic Inquisition or the Calvinist Consistory of Geneva.
MY pubic intellect says that Dear Orange Leader has a SLUT-LOAD in cummon with Caligula and Nero!!! Watch, ass Dear Orange Leader-Caligula-Nero (Bleeder of the peons) fiddles (with Queen Spermy Daniels at Shit's side) while America burns!!! Snot even ass mulch ass bread and circuses swill be provided, either!
(Butt Merry Christmas anyway!)
Fuck off and die, lying watermelon and take your fake website with you.
"American democracy is going through some trials, as we deal with a ruling party that's committed to disruption, savors the obliteration of long-standing democratic norms and is committed to a leader who often acts like a wannabe despot."
This article is ridiculous. Church attendance in the late 1700s was about twice what it is today. I've seen no evidence Trump is creating or wants a theocracy. This article is like Hillary's claim Trump is a puppet or conspirator with Putin.
Mostly it reflects the authors' TDS IMHO. And it's ironic, I see Trump as the most libertarian president in the past 100 years, but all the Reason authors don't see it.
"most libertarian president"
Absolutely hilarious. The federal government now owns controlling interests in many businesses, constitutional guarantees of free speech, protection from warrantless searches, and protection from arrests without due process are gone, and favored businesses get government protection and largesse.
"Absolutely hilarious."
Absolutely true, asswipe. Cite another and show your work.
"The federal government now owns controlling interests in many businesses,"
It holds none, lying pile of shit.
"...constitutional guarantees of free speech, protection from warrantless searches, and protection from arrests without due process are gone..."
Cite(s) missing, asswipe
"and favored businesses get government protection and largesse."
You're (in your imbecility) confusing drooling Joe with Trump:
"Trump admin scraps 5 offshore wind farms — including New York project — citing 'national security risks'"
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-admin-scraps-5-offshore-wind-farms-including-new-york-project-citing-national-security-risks/ar-AA1SQoTU?ocid=BingNewsSerp
All those watermelon subsidies, including EVs, down the stube, shitstain.
STFU and die.
Controlling interest in one anyways; Amtrak.
Which ironically was the [D]s doing.
Take leftards accusations as an admission of guilt and you're usually spot-on.
Day-in and Day-out; It's all leftard self-projection 101.
Which modern presidents ar Emory libertarian?
Moist Behind-the-Ears Libertarian DickTator-Wannabe!
https://www.buzzfeed.com/michaelabramwell/reactions-trumps-tweet-about-law-violation
"He who saves his Country does not violate any Law." Said Dear Orange DicKKKTator-Caligula.
"Wants to be a dictator. If you don't see it it means you don't want to," former Trump White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci said.
Mussolini: “Everything within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state.”
Shitler: “The good of the state stands above the law.”
Napoleon: “I am the revolution.”
Francisco Franco: “I am responsible only to God and to history.”
Shitler: “The good of the state stands above the LAW.” For emphasis... Of all of the quotes, this one most clearly shows that Shitler and Orange Shitler are Bros... Piss in a pod, who want to piss on us all, and turn us all into Pod People!
So the brain-damaged lying pile of TDS-addled shit lies and hopes rational people will accept the lies.
Fuck off and die, asswipe. Yes, that's you on the toilet tissue.
Really don't get why TDS loons (Trump Devotion Syndrome) post comments on a website that is the direct polar opposite to their own ideology? Do you really have nothing better to do with you're miserable lives?
Reason really needs to kick in their you can't comment unless you pay the subscription fee for all commenters already.
"most libertarian president"... Well let's see we got Obama, Clinton, JFK, Eisenhower, and Coolidge when it comes to liberal social policy (government not involved in people's personal lives) and free markets. None of them started a trade war. If you mean most anti-welfare. then sure Trump.
Trade Deficit: https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/trade-deficit-the-most-misunderstood-number-in-economics/
"None of them started a trade war. "
Four of those five were free traders. America prospered! Coolidge, however, was Vice President when Harding signed the Emergency Tariff of 1921 and the Fordney–McCumber Tariff of 1922, and when he became President he kept them in place. They were designed to protect agriculture in the US but as is the case with pretty much every protectionist trade measure, the effect was the opposite of what was intended, as other countries retaliated and the depression in agriculture that had begun shortly after WW1 continued and worsened; it didn't end until WW2.
Trump and his Cult are too stupid to learn the lessons of history.
No Christian nationalism here:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-0135
None then and none today. Outside the fever dreams of Reason editors.
See Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Nick Fuentes. They would never write such a letter.
"...American democracy is going through some trials, as we deal with a ruling party that's committed to disruption, savors the obliteration of long-standing democratic norms and is committed to a leader who often acts like a wannabe despot. We've also seen the rise of discourse on the right and left that is openly dismissive of democracy and plays footsie with authoritarianism..."
Not at all. The deep state is under attack, fighting tooth and nail to keep the gravy train running while the blathering class is threatened and is populated largely by TDS-addled lying piles of steaming shit as exemplified by this asshole.
"Down on his luck, Washington launched this audacious military strike on Christmas, sending three groups (only one made it) across the ice-choked waters on small cargo boats during a ferocious storm."
Wait a second. Only one of three? I've never heard that. What happened to the other two?
AI "Perplexity" says...
Yes, Washington planned **three separate crossings** of the Delaware River on the night of December 25–26, 1776, but only **his own group succeeded**; the other two were blocked by ice and weather.[1][2][3][4]
## The three planned groups
Washington divided his forces into three columns to converge on Trenton:
- **Washington’s column** (~2,400 men under Washington, Greene, and Sullivan): crossed at McConkey’s Ferry (~9 miles north of Trenton) to attack the town directly.[3][4][1]
- **Gen. James Ewing’s column** (~700 Pennsylvania militia): cross at Trenton Ferry (directly opposite Trenton) to block the Assunpink Creek bridge and prevent Hessian escape south.[2][4][1]
- **Gen. John Cadwalader’s column** (~1,900 men): cross farther south at Dunk’s Ferry (near Bristol, PA) to attack a Hessian outpost at Bordentown and block reinforcements.[4][1][2]
## What happened to the other two groups
- **Ewing’s column**: Attempted crossing failed due to thick ice blocking Durham boats; they could not reach the New Jersey side before dawn and returned to Pennsylvania without engaging.[1][2][4]
- **Cadwalader’s column**: Also stopped by ice; after hours of struggle (artillery nearly capsized), he aborted around 2–3 a.m., sent some infantry across later as a partial diversion, but most troops did not join Washington.[2][4][1]
## Impact on the battle
Washington’s men pressed the attack anyway, surprising the Hessians at Trenton and winning decisively (capturing ~900 prisoners), but ~400 Hessians escaped south because Ewing never blocked the bridge. The other groups’ absence left Washington’s force exposed but did not prevent victory.[5][3][4][2]
[1](https://histpens.com/pages/washington-crossing-the-delaware-history)
[2](https://www.thenmusa.org/articles/crossing-the-delaware/)
[3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington's_crossing_of_the_Delaware_River)
etc.
I have no idea where he got that. It was numerous small boats. 20 Durham boats and many other smaller craft.
https://www.washingtoncrossingpark.org/where-washington-get-durham-boats/
He’s probably referring to the two supporting brigades, under the command of other generals, that failed to cross at other points as the original plan called for.
Greenhut is a 'California' moderate, which, just about everywhere else, is far, far left.
California moderates indeed are trying to restrict the "right" of government to control what you can do with your real property. Republicans are fighting this tooth and nail.
We're seeing the re-emergence of an age-old debate. Most people see America as an experiment in classical liberalism, whereby the founders created a system of limited government, religious pluralism and liberty. Religious leaders are free to spread their message through the culture—but not to take control of the levers of power and base lawmaking on their sectarian Bible interpretations. The Constitution protects everyone's natural rights, with its main purpose limiting the sphere of government—not implementing rules to assure proper religious observance.
Those second two sentences have little to do with the actual texts/histories and everything to do with presentism. Which is a completely normal FALLACY because we all have our biases and prefer the simple/lazy.
But when combined with arrogance, they lead to There really is no other way to seriously read our Constitution, but many religious people still argue... IOW - the author is now purely in the realm of spreading propaganda. With a couple weird or anachronistic presentist ideas, it is exactly the origin of woke/etc
Stop being so fucking lazy. History didn't happen merely so that you could bring it to bear in some petty bullshit argument today.
in the immortal words of Washington himself before crossing the Delaware "men, get in the boats"!
At the founding of the US, 9 out of 13 of the original colonies had official established tax supported state churches. Congregationalists in New England and Anglican in the south. Maryland was originally Catholic then Anglican. They were all Christian denominations.
Eventually the states disestablished the churches, Massachusetts
being the last holdout in 1833.
The constitution's prohibition of a state religion was only directed to the federal government. If it hadn't a civil war would have broken out a lot sooner.
Perhaps. But having official religions and churches isn’t the same as having a government run by a single religious denomination (like England).. Nor that people of the dominant denomination didn’t remember vividly what happened to those who embraced a different faith when it was the Anglicans holding the cudgel and the Puritans (and Quakers, Amish, Lutherans, etc.) who were at the thick end of the club.
Remember, people fleeing religious persecution (and Christian on Christian persecution, at that) made up a sizable portion of those who came to the Colonies. They knew exactly what happened when you allowed religious government. Because they fled it.
The idea that it was important for religion to be freely exercised while knowing that allowing religion into government was a ticket to persecution is something that the Colonists knew (and feared) first-hand.
And I may be in the minority here, but incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states is an excellent idea that prevents (or at least hinders) theocrats and absolutists in the federal government. No loopholes for bigotry when it infringes on rights, period, whether it’s a state or federal government doing it.
The idea that it was important for religion to be freely exercised while knowing that allowing religion into government was a ticket to persecution is something that the Colonists knew (and feared) first-hand.
That was certainly very well understood and expressed by Roger Williams and Thomas Jefferson. OTOH - THE reason that the Pilgrims left Leyden and came to Plymouth on the Mayflower was because they viewed Leyden as a tolerant place where they feared their children would assimilate and lose their Puritan Separatism. And it was the Puritans of a couple decades later who drove Roger Williams into exile from MA to RI. Puritans who are the origins of Unitarian Universalism which is about as weird an ancestry chart (from Salem Witch Trials to welcoming Wiccans) as you can imagine. Not to mention the very complicated post-English Civil War Puritan migration to New England.
Long story short - both sides of that conflict exist here in the US and have since forever. And mostly NOT the Puritans. eg Roger Williams Baptists are not at all like the Southern Baptists (who are one of the major origins for 'Christian nationalism'). The evangelical splinters from all denominations (the origin of most 'Christian nationalism') date from about 1910 - not the founding.
The congregation that Roger Williams founded in Providence still exists today.
https://www.firstbaptistchurchinamerica.org/
And that Baptist Church has absolutely nothing to do with Westboro Baptist Church - which revels in intolerance.
The Catholic Church was never the Established Church in Maryland, although it was the only English colony that had large number of Catholics. When the Anglicans took over in the 1690s, they moved the capital from Catholic Saint Mary's, which is now an archeological site (the modern Saint Mary's is a few miles away from the original, which has had a few buildings reconstructed), to Protestant Annapolis, and banned public worship by Catholics. As early as 1649 it had become a death penalty offense to profess any religion other than Trinitarian Christianity. Jews were smart enough to avoid the colony, but after independence and the end of the bans on Catholic worship and Jewish existence, it took half a century for Jews to be able to vote.
I grew up in Maryland and this sordid history was not taught in schools.
Should be required reading in school.
The Founding Myth: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1454943912/reasonmagazinea-20/
The phrase 'Christian nationalism' is rather silly in the US. Maybe it makes sense in a country where there is a dominant denomination that encompasses both some shared denominational nationalism and some external 'other' that can be demonized.
But the reality here in the US is that those who adopt the phrase 'Christian nationalist' are not demonizing some external other. They are creating an internal other, and demonizing them.
Basically - splitters.
It is the Christian nationalists who have created an internal other, to demonize everyone who disagrees with their plans to make the US an intolerant Christian theocracy.
Let me repeat - there is no such thing here in the US as 'Christian nationalism'. The US is completely denominational and that is completely obvious with the proven tendency of religion here to fracture into tens of thousands of denominations and congregations. 'Christianity' is NOT some opportunity to unify anything and never has been here. It is a precursor to fracturing/splintering.
Anyone who is declaiming 'Christian nationalism' is very deliberately lying, lazy, stupid, or all three. You are creating/demonizing an internal other as much as any self-proclaimed 'Christian nationalist' is doing so.
Further just because people claim the label/adjective doesn't make it so either. That is in fact exactly the sort of 'freedom of religion' here in the US that allows/encourages people to create their own labels/adjectives which is precisely what then leads to fracturing/splitting.
I always appreciated it when "libertarians", Progressives, and atheists/anti-theists stand up and announce how utterly retarded they are.
Sure, you can sit in the pew that Washington sat in Church. Read the prayers that he wrote with his own hand. Sure, you can read the religious decrees of The Crown and The Church. It's all there, written plain as day and hashed and rehashed by political and religious scholars on both sides for over 200 yrs. all of whom to a large degree don't dispute the prayers, The Bibles, the respective Churches and religious moral motivations...
But, forget all those morons, all those facts, all those historical artifacts, Greenhut's got the real scoop.
It is the people who question George Washington's commitment to religious freedom who are the retarded ones. No Christian Nationalist would ever write anything like this:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-06-02-0132
This argument is worthy of the TV series "Pluribus".
Many patriotic Americans would says that the American Revolution was rooted in the preservation of slavery and in rejection of James II's attempt to end religious bigotry in New England -- leading to the permanent neutralization of the monarchy both in America and England. America gladly signed on to the new monarchy which guaranteed colonies their pre-existing freedoms, as well as suppressing enforcement of the hated Navigation Acts.
Linking America's founding to religion has always been a non-starter.
No mention of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship, Signed at Tripoli November 4, 1796?
Article 11: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion...
Americans’ freedom of conscience was protected even by the plain language of the original Constitution. Article VI emphasized that “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” Article VI supported “no [particular kind of] religious” belief and it protected having “no religious” belief at all. Many considering the Constitution knew this clause supported freedom of conscience even to the point of protecting atheism or deism. Many people objected vigorously on all the foregoing grounds. This particular provision engendered copious vigorous opposition to and discussion of the Constitution.
James Iredell (a leading Federalist and judge in North Carolina, and later a SCOTUS justice who issued an opinion emphasizing the sovereignty of the people) was one of the many who addressed Americans’ liberty of religion. He delivered a speech at the North Carolina ratifying convention defending the protection for freedom of conscience in Article VI:
"I consider the clause under consideration as one of the strongest proofs that could be adduced, that it was the intention of [the Framers of our Constitution], to establish a general religious liberty in America. . . . [But] it is objected, that [clause permits] the people of America [to choose] Representatives who have no religion at all, and that Pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into [federal] offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always in the right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. . . . It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority."
Iredell further emphasized that “[t]his article is calculated to secure universal religious liberty” because such liberty is “the only way to prevent persecution.” Iredell also emphasized the reason:
"Every person in the least conversant in the history of mankind, knows what dreadful mischiefs have been committed by religious persecutions. . . . Those in power have generally considered all wisdom centered in themselves, that they alone had a right to dictate to the rest of mankind, and that all opposition to their tenets was profane and impious. The consequence of this intolerant spirit has been, that each church has in turn set itself up against every other, and persecutions and wars of the most implacable and bloody nature have taken place in every part of the world. America has set an example to mankind to think more modestly and reasonably; that a man may be of different religious sentiments from our own, without being a bad member of society."
Oliver Ellsworth (another leading Federalist who helped create the Constitution and who served as the third chief justice of SCOTUS) expressed similar thoughts in his published writing in A Landholder VII in 1787:
"The business of civil government is to protect the citizen in his rights, to defend the community from hostile powers, and to promote the general welfare. Civil government has no business to meddle with the private opinions of the people. If I demean myself as a good citizen, I am accountable, not to man, but to God, for the religious opinions which I embrace, and the manner in which I worship the supreme being. If such had been the universal sentiments of mankind, and they had acted accordingly, persecution, the bane of truth and nurse of error, with her bloody axe and flaming hand, would never have turned so great a part of the world into a field of blood."