Introducing a new contributor to our site…Hrafnkell Haraldsson. He has written a great piece debunking the notion of a “Christian america”.
Mythical America
by Hrafnkell Haraldsson
We’ve heard it all said a hundred times – that America is a Christian nation, that it was founded as a Christian nation, that the Founding Fathers were Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian men, that there is no Wall of Separation between Church and State.
The only problem is, none of it is true.
And the 18th century’s own Evangelicals signed off on the system of government those very secular-minded Founding Fathers established.
Back in the 18th century, you see, people were a lot closer to the events that shaped the new nation. They had close personal experience with the dangers of Church and State meddling in each other’s business. They knew what it was to be persecuted, not by a secular government but by a government under the control of another denomination.
They wanted protection. From each other.
And our new system of government, promised by the Declaration of Independence and come to fruition in the Constitution, gave them what they asked for.
Of course, none of these facts have stopped our own century’s Evangelicals from telling an entirely different story, one founded not in fact, not in history, but in wishful thinking, in history as it should have been – but wasn’t.
And they have big money backing them up. They have glossy websites, glossy publications, book clubs, brochures, even entire series’ of books, including the “Politically Incorrect Guide to…” series, which would be better named, “Factually Inaccurate Guide” or “Historically Inaccurate Guide.”
These books play to the base. Like any works of apologia – and that is what they are – they comfort believers, convincing them, reassuring them, that all is well, that the lies they’ve been told are safe to believe – and to go on believing.
But this mythical Christian America has no more solid a foundation than Creation Science – both are contradictions in terms.
It is true that most of the citizens of the new United States were Christians of one kind or another, many of them, especially following the successful conclusion of the War for Independence, refugees from oppressive religious environments in the Old World. They came here precisely because there WAS separation between church and state, precisely because here, they could be free of government-sponsored religion.
The problem for today’s Evangelicals is that the government itself was secular in nature, founded by men grounded in science and reason and disciples – and products – of the Age of European Enlightenment.
These men had the opportunity to form any sort of government they wished. ANY. They could have made a monarchy of our new nation – it was considered and the idea dismissed. They could have established a theocracy – but no one gave that idea any thought at all. It was never even a possibility. The motto of the new nation was, significantly, “E Pluribus Unum” – Out of Many, One. It was not, equally significantly, “In God We Trust.”
Instead, they gave us a nation founded on ancient principles of democracy, a product of ancient polytheistic Greece, and freedom of speech and thought – also products of the ancient polytheistic world – and human rights, a product of the European Enlightenment so heartily condemned by the Church. Nothing in the new nation was based on biblical principles. The Founding Fathers took more from the Iroquois Federation than they did Old Testament Israel.
There too, facts have not stopped today’s Evangelicals, who ardently insist that our nation was founded on Biblical principles. I would like to inquire where in ancient Israel there existed ideas of Democracy and Free Speech and thought. In ancient Israel, free thought and free speech got you stoned. Nor was there Democracy; there was monarchy and theocracy. There were no human rights. Exercising human rights would get you stoned. It was a society built on exclusion and enforced behavior. There was no liberty anywhere in sight.
So what we have today as the heart and soul of the Republican Base is a Mythical America, an American history of the imagination, one of wishful thinking but not of fact. Just as is much of the Bible, this Mythical America is pious history.
Look at some of the assertions made by the Mythicists:
- The American “revolutionaries” were actually conservatives
- The Puritans didn’t steal Indian lands
- The Bible promotes human freedom
- The enemies of the Bible are enemies of true reason and tolerance
- The Bible made modern science possible (which is why it started in the Middle Ages)
- The Middle Ages were the real “Age of Reason”
- The “Enlightenment” yielded tyranny and war.
It is no surprise that these “talking points” are aped on social networking sites, on FOX News and anywhere else conservatives gather. They’re said as if they’re true. The specious reasoning that goes behind them is repeated as if it even made sense (which it doesn’t).
- The revolutionaries were liberals. They founded our nation on the liberal principles of the European Enlightenment – not upon the conservative principles of the Old World.
- The Puritans did steal Indian lands. Shamelessly.
- The Bible nowhere promotes human freedom. Evangelicals can repeat the myth of Christian egalitarianism and slavery all they want but the truth is, Christianity did not promote egalitarianism and it did not free the slaves.
- The statement that enemies of the Bible are enemies of reason and tolerance proves itself wrong.
- Science did not start in the Middle Ages. It started in the ancient polytheistic world – and, significantly, not in Biblical Israel but in Greece, which promoted freedom of thought and speech. When science saw the light of day again, it was not because of Christianity, but despite it, as the historical record clearly demonstrates.
- The Middle Ages were not the Age of Reason. One has only to look at the rampant superstition, the crusades, the wars against heretics, the inquisition, the witch-burnings, the anti-Jewish pogroms, the forced conversion of Pagan peoples in Northern and Eastern Europe…no, not much Reason but a whole lot of slaughter in God’s name.
- The Enlightenment did not stop war, but it did not yield war as a consequence. It did, however, put a stop to crusades, wars against heretics, the inquisition, witch-burnings, and rampant anti-Jewish pogroms. It was not quite able to stop forced conversion of Pagan peoples but at least we stopped slaughtering them in “God’s” name.
Our society is diverse and free to a degree that has never been possible before in history. Diversity and plurality are a blessing. But to the Evangelicals, it is a threat. It threatens the status quo. It threatens them with loss of power and loss of influence. The more diverse our society becomes, the more resistant they become. The more reactionary they become. They become more intolerant, more hateful, and more inclined to use fear as a weapon to browbeat others into servitude to “their” Bible.
And the more inclined they are to embrace an imaginary, Mythical America. As a result, we are introduced to ideas that have no basis in historical fact, like the points discussed briefly above. We have conservative Christians making blind, unsupported assertions about this Mythical America as though it really existed, without a thought being given to the facts.
And why bother with the facts when talking points are so handy – when apologetic works abound, demonstrating these myths to be fact and denouncing fact as myth? It’s all very comforting to them, and all very damaging, not only for them, but for all of us. They want to impose on the United States a return to the 13th century, to that imaginary “Age of Reason” they talk about, when they – and they alone – were free to do what they wanted – to everyone else. And let not a word be raised in protest.
Because as you all by now know, they can damn and condemn and it’s their God-given right, but should anyone raise a word in protest, it’s a “war against Christianity” or “hate” or “intolerance.” Because it isn’t freedom they really want. It’s the privileging of their myth, of their own beliefs, at the expense of everyone else. It’s the freedom to persecute, without apology or thought, everyone different from them, and like their 13th century brethren, justify it in their god’s name.
Well done…and many thanks for your work!
But America didn’t exist in the 13th century. It could not have existed in the 13th century. It took a genuine Age of Reason to make America possible, and going back to the 13th century would skip right over it. It’s pretty obvious to anyone living in an evidence-based world, but as the Politically Incorrect guide series of books make clear, their interest isn’t in evidence – it’s in wishful thinking.
We’ve heard it all said a hundred times – that America is a Christian nation, that it was founded as a Christian nation, that the Founding Fathers were Bible-believing, God-fearing Christian men, that there is no Wall of Separation between Church and State.
These men had the opportunity to form any sort of government they wished. ANY. They could have made a monarchy of our new nation – it was considered and the idea dismissed. They could have established a theocracy – but no one gave that idea any thought at all. It was never even a possibility. The motto of the new nation was, significantly, “E Pluribus Unum” – Out of Many, One. It was not, equally significantly, “In God We Trust.”
And the more inclined they are to embrace an imaginary, Mythical America. As a result, we are introduced to ideas that have no basis in historical fact, like the points discussed briefly above. We have conservative Christians making blind, unsupported assertions about this Mythical America as though it really existed, without a thought being given to the facts.

Leah, I have long thought of them as having a mob mentality, but reading your last sentence another thought came up unbidden: and increasingly diabolical one!
Sorry… "and an " increasingly diabolical one….
Hraf, funny you should mention that you are "from the Colorado Springs of the Midwest". I fled the Vatican City back in 2005 and haven't looked back.
I am somewhat perplexed, if not humored, by Glenn Beck's (and others) understanding of the Founding Fathers as fundamentalist conservatives. For instance, Beck encourages his minions to read Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" but never "The Age of Reason" or "Rights of Man". It's only "Common Sense" that he seizes upon.
Also, for those who hate the "Dial 1 for English", because America is an "English speaking only" nation, they need only to read Thomas Jefferson's letter to Peter Carr (his nephew) when Jefferson was advising young Peter on what academic subjects to pursue. He exhorted him to learn Spanish stating:
"Bestow great attention on this, and endeavor to acquire an accurate knowledge of it. Our future connections with Spain and Spanish America, will render that language a valuable acquisition. The ancient history of that part of America, too, is written in that language. I send you a dictionary."
more….
I agree with everything you said, Leah. Their anti-intellectualism is the kind of thing the Founding Fathers worried about in their distrust of the common peoples' ability to rule themselves. I wonder sometimes if they weren't right, given the last 8 years.
And mobs…You know what Benjamin Franklin said about mobs…"A mob's a monster; heads enough but no brains." They've certainly proven him true.
To Leah and Hrafnkell ,I've had several of the people i've referred to your blog who thought you were condemning Christianity please tell them that this site is not condemning Christianity but defining the difference between fanatics and the Down to Earth who practice a faith in an organised and orderly fashion ! One that does not threaten,Browbeat with talk of unimaginable suffering,Wealth ten times over if you give beyond your means,Healing to the faithful and if your not healed it was because you did'nt really believe you could be ,and by the way thats the standard excuse if you did'nt receive what you prayed for " It was your fault because you did'nt believe! There is so much more to say about the difference , what it comes down to in my mind is Tolerance, Compassion, Honesty , Generosity and a host of other things without thought of reward or personal gain and most important the knowledge that Church and State are not compatible.Seems simple to me " Now that is "
To some people, condemning Dominionism *is* "condemning Christianity" because to them only Dominionism *is* Christianity…
This NOT a site where I condemn Christianity…it is actually the opposite. This is where I condemn "Phalse Profits for Profit". Jesus referred to them as "wolves in sheep's clothing" and warned us to watch for them who come in His name. Matthew 7:15 "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves." This is Thank you for bringing this up Tom. One of the pillars that supports my writing is a defense of Christianity.
Reassure your friends…as I will too…that this is the message. I have stated time and time again that I am NOT anti-Christian….I am anti-'c'hristian. They offend me and people of the Christian faith…and on the backs of the unknowing. I will continue to weave this into my writings to reiterate this difference.
This reminds me of so much of the criticism aimed toward Mikey Weinstein…that because he is fighting for the right for all military personnel to have freedom in faith as well as freedom FROM faith, he is touted as anti-Christian. Conversely, the majority of Military Religious Freedom Foundation's clients are Christian. They do not want to be proselytized to by the evangelical zealots. This is pro-Jesus!
And on the subject of Moral Philosophy, Jefferson never mentioned reading the Bible to gain a singular grasp of morality. Jefferson stated:
I think it lost time to attend lectures on this branch. He who made us would have been a pitiful bungler, if he had made the rules of our moral conduct a matter of science. For one man of science, there are thousands who are not. What would have become of them? Man was destined for society. His morality, therefore, was to be formed to this object. He was endowed with a sense of right and wrong, merely relative to this. This sense is as much a part of his nature, as the sense of hearing, seeing, feeling; it is the true foundation of morality, and not the to kalon [beautiful], truth, &c., as fanciful writers have imagined. The moral sense, or conscience, is as much a part of man as his leg or arm. It is given to all human beings in a stronger or weaker degree, as force of members is given them in a greater or less degree. It may be strengthened by exercise, as may any particular limb of the body. This sense is submitted, indeed, in some degree, to the guidance of reason; but it is a small stock which is required for this: even a less one than what we call common sense."
Why did Jefferson not encourage young Peter to read the Bible for the purpose of moral clarity?
"In this branch, therefore, read good books, because they will encourage, as well as direct your feelings. The writings of Sterne, particularly, form the best course of morality that ever was written. Besides these, read the books mentioned in the enclosed paper; and, above all things, lose no occasion of exercising your dispositions to be grateful, to be generous, to be charitable, to be humane, to be true, just, firm, orderly, courageous, &c. Consider every act of this kind, as an exercise which will strengthen your moral faculties & increase your worth."
and….
As pertaining to religion Jefferson wrote the following admonitions.
"Your reason is now mature enough to examine this object." Notice Jefferson thought Peter needed to be of a "mature" age to "examine this object" known as religion. I have read elsewhere that Jefferson did not think children should be taught the Bible due precisely to their being impressionable and unable to judge with a mature mind what is truth, fantasy or speculation.
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first, the religion of your own country. Read the Bible, then as you would read Livy or Tacitus."
Jefferson was not a Biblical literalist as so many of the religious right want to believe.
"But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from God. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong, as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature, in the case he relates. For example, in the book of Joshua, we are told, the sun stood still several hours. Were we to read that fact in Livy or Tacitus, we should class it with their showers of blood, speaking of statues, beasts, &c. But it is said, that the writer of that book was inspired. Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis, as the earth does, should have stopped, should not, by that sudden stoppage, have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time gave resumed its revolution, & that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth's motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities?"
"Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, & that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a God, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. In fine, I repeat, you must lay aside all prejudice on both sides, and neither believe nor reject anything, because any other persons, or description of persons, have rejected or believed it. Your own reason is the only oracle given you by heaven, and you are answerable, not for the rightness, but uprightness of the decision. I forgot to observe, when speaking of the New Testament, that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us, to be Pseudo-evangelists, as those they named Evangelists. Because these Pseudo-evangelists pretended to inspiration, as much as the others, and you are to judge their pretensions by your own reason, and not by the reason of those ecclesiastics."
To read the letter in it's entirety and the reading list recommended by Jefferson it can be found here:
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_car...
More reading material! Love t! My thanks to all who keep widening our horizons.
This is what causes so many ruffled feathers. It is a challenge to be critical of any sect of Christianity…or to even submit the concept that there are sects of extremists. Being a Christian does not have a single definition in America, or elsewhere…but if you are dominionist, it is black and white…and Catholics, non-dominionists beware. Be careful to understand what we are fighting here and what we are defending. I defend anyone's faith in Christianity, as I do the right for anyone to choose what ever religion they believe. I am just adamant againsnt ANYONE forcing their faith on the rest of us!