quote:Originally posted by BFred07:
Why do people argue whether or not this is a Christian nation? It is obvious that our country was founded on Christian principals but for anyone who still wants to argue, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the unreversed case of Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 437 (1892), held that “this is a Christian nation.”
So anyway, with the U.S. Supreme Court decision I think that means it's sort of official.
text of case
BFred07, you should have paid more attention to the link that jennifer posted, which said THIS about the Supreme Court's Holy Trinity opinion:
"In the Supreme Court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church vs. United States, Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." Many Christians use this as evidence. However, Brewer wrote this in dicta, as a personal opinion only and does not serve as a legal pronouncement. Later Brewer felt obliged to explain himself: "But in what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all."
Here is what "dicta" means:
So, you see, one of the most widely-cited references to the "Christian nation" concept does not carry the water that so many Christian nationist theocratics wish it did.
If some prominent judge or politician were today to make the kind of observations that Judge Brewer did in the above-quoted explanation, he would udoubtedly be excoriated by the "religious right" as a traitor to the Constitution