Why were the founding fathers so hostile to Christianity gaining political power ?

Question

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

From Jefferson's biography:

"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected-----'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'"


"Christianity...[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man....Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus." --- Thomas Jefferson


Maybe they knew something like the Illegal war in Iraq and torture around the world would take place and that would herald the downfall of this great nation.

Answer 1

People are making answers here as if the treaty of Tripoli is part of the Constitution. The treaty with Tripoli had nothing to do with the balance of power, nor the setting up of our nation. You must first establish to context of the treaty.

The 1797 treaty with Tripoli was one of the many treaties in which each country officially recognized the religion of the other in an attempt to prevent further escalation of a "Holy War" between Christians and Muslims. Consequently, Article XI of that treaty stated:

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

This was an attempt to get captured American seamen out of Muslim hands. Many still looked upon any Christian as "a Crusader" (sound familiar?)

Read this for a full explanation.
http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=5

Answer 2

I believe that these quotes accurately reflect the thinking of these American political figures at the time they were written, and some of them are actually quite helpful and supportive of religion and even of Christianity. Yet too many Americans (Christians and not) have the mistaken notion that the founding fathers were predominately Christians, when in fact many were Deists and Rationalists who may have believed in a generic unitarian "God" but did not believe and confess Christianity as it is accepted in an orthodox, catholic, sense. The fact that the individuals quoted by the questioner happened to be political leaders in their day doesn't necessarily qualify them as theologians, any more than political opinions expressed by a priest or pastor should necessarily be accepted uncritically. Nor should abuses in religion be viewed any more or less severely than abuses in democracy. Both are systems of belief and practice that purport to offer a model or template for the conduct of individuals and collectively, yet both are subject to the failings of the flawed human beings who participate in them. As a confessional Lutheran pastor, I'm very comfortable with the separation of church and state in the sense of the "two kingdoms" doctrine. Both should maintain independence from the other, neither realm meddling into matters about which it has limited qualifications and no charter to intervene. That said, it seems clear to an objective reader that the constitutional requirement of the government not respecting any establishment of religion had been originally intended to indicate that no official state church shall be sanctioned by the United States, exactly because of the abuses in the church-state relationship that the framers had observed in other historical settings. Yet there are strong indications that these men also felt religion had value in governing the ethics and morality of the populace in a democratic republic and preventing outrageous behavior. So, who really wanted to use religion to exercise control over the citizenry; the religious leaders, or the the political? And who wanted to use religion to serve the purposes of government? In recent decades, it appears that the government has begun to meddle and encroach into the conduct of religion and even taken hostile actions toward it. Meanwhile, too many religious bodies and figures have become actively involved in attempting to sway the political realm toward their own ends, perhaps in self-defense. But, rather than simply making their concerns about secular matters known publicly as any organization is entitled to do, and communicating to their members the religious body's teachings on a matter so they can make informed decisions as individual citizens, they've attempted to gain their way by directly injecting themselves in the executive, legislative, and judicial processes. Both camps should stay out of the other's tent, in my opinion; both would be able to focus their efforts on addressing their own purposes.

Answer 3

I don't know anything about the treaty. But I would say that the founding fathers are not against Christianity but against one Government religion because of all of the problems that happened in Europe i.e. Catholic Church, and Church of England. There a good chance that if our government created a state church then there is a good chance that this would happen in America too. This is what the Founding Fathers were afraid of.

Answer 4

Jefferson went on to say "The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

Most of the world was not too happy with England and the Catholic church back then (sound familiar).

Answer 5

A) They wanted a democracy and were afraid of the power an institution (eg. a king or a religion) could hold over a country, turning a democracy into something else.

B) The founding fathers were not what I would call "committed Christians."

Answer 6

Because the Church had control over governments for hundreds of years in Europe. It was the dogma of the churches that made Jefferson despise organized religion. He was a man of science not of faith. In fact most of the founding fathers were against the church because of the past experience with the Catholic church and the Church of England.

Answer 7

They were hostile to the idea of one Church governing the entire nation because they had experienced this tyranny at the hands of Great Britain and the Church of England.

However, they were not personally against religion or against religious values affecting laws. Most of the founders were either Christians or Deists or Theists. There are many Masonic Christians.

Answer 8

It was not that they were hostel to Christianity gaining political power, it was the idea of one church having all the power, such as the church of England which the King founded, and they did want the abuse of power to happen; and had no power to do anything about it. They just finished living under such a system.

Answer 9

Many of those who founded the US had fled religious persecution in Europe. Thats not persecution of Christians by others - far from it. It was one Christian sect persecuting another, usually by killing them.

It was clear that noone could make progress without distancing religion. No country can call itself civilized unless it rids itself of the spectre of religion.

Answer 10

I'm not too certain if these quotes are real, or in context at all. But the reason why our forefathers were so "hostile" (which they weren't being Christians themselves) was because they wanted to emphasize FREEDOM OF RELIGION~~ Having been persecuted for their own beliefs back at the motherland, I'm sure they wanted to make sure that no ONE in the USA would ever be subject to that again.