When did @JonahDispatch become David French 2.0? There’s a real discussion to be had here on the question of America’s Christian roots, but you can’t have it when the tone is smirking elitism. Let’s try anyway: Was the United States founded as a Christian country? To read Goldberg here, it was founded on “theological diversity,” a concept he takes from twilight Western civilization and grafts onto 18th century thought, an idea alien to that time. Jonah wrote for National Review. I can well imagine another contributor to National Review, the late eminent American historian Forrest McDonald (who guided my graduate thesis) thundering a contemptuous verdict on such thinking. He would say Jonah is reading the past through a contemporary lens. Diversity, as it is currently defined, had no place in their thinking. No one saw it as a source of cultural strength (and, historically speaking, diversity has never made any nation great). It finds no place in early American slogans nor in our founding documents. Diversity was precisely what they were trying to overcome. The right word is tolerance. Of Christian and European descent to a man, the Founders weren’t thinking in terms of creating a touchy-feely country built on “theological diversity.” They were thinking of the intolerance of Christians toward other Christians. They knew well the horrors of The Peasant Rebellion, the Thirty Years War, Bloody Mary, and so on. Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus didn’t enter into it. They were thinking of an Elizabethan-style arrangement where the state was a noncombatant in theological disputes. Let’s return to our original question: Was the United States founded as Christian country? Short answer: no. I get uncomfortable when I see the David Bartons and, dare I say it, the Charlie Kirks arguing otherwise. That this is so is obvious. Had that been their intention, they would have codified it. It would be embedded in our Constitution. It isn’t. Moreover, America’s founding was deeply influenced by both the English and French Enlightenments. The English Enlightenment was profoundly Christian; the French Enlightenment was decidedly atheistic. One gave us Christians like Washington and Adams and the other gave us Jefferson and Payne. Fortunately, the influence of the English version on our development was greater. Let’s unpack the nuances of this. Militant secularists have long interpreted the above as a proof that the United States was meant to be irreligious bordering on atheistic. That’s nonsense. And Goldberg seems to think the authors of our Constitution were inspired by a mixture of Zen Buddhist bullshit or Hinduism’s 33 crore gods or the wicked Quran in addition to some vague Christian ideals. This, too, is nonsense. Just as Christianity gave rise to democracy, capitalism, science, and the West in general, it also gave rise to the United States. And yet, America was not founded as a Christian state. That said, @megbasham was right to say that it was founded by a “99%” Christian people. The distinction is important. The authors of the Constitution were self-consciously creating a new nation that was inspired by uniquely Christian ideals, but there would be no religious tests. Common ground would be found in what all Christians saw as self-evidential truths: human dignity and rights flowing from a gracious God. A final word on where this started: the influx of Indians (i.e., Hindus) and Goldberg’s faux outrage that @SteveDeaceShow saw it as culturally counterproductive. As I pointed out in an interview with John Stossel, the idea that human equality is “self-evident” is incoherent outside of a Christian context. Indian scholar Vishal Mangalwadi points out that Hinduism is predicated on human inequality. @SteveDeaceShow’s point stands. I conclude with this: while I understand why they didn’t, I wish the Founders had created a broad religious test for citizenship. That they didn’t may be our undoing.

I’m late to this discussion. On occasion, I have very much appreciated @JonahDispatch’s commentary, but throughout this exchange his tone is elitist condescension instead of sound reasoning. Here @SteveDeaceShow says Hinduism is antithetical to our founding principles, and Goldberg’s response is to cite the performance of Indian students in our schools. It’s like saying, “Well, your hair looks funny.” It’s a non sequitur. That Hindu students (Asian students in general, actually) often do well in our institutions in no way disproves @SteveDeaceShow’s point. Hinduism — and Islam and Buddhism — are utterly antithetical to our founding principles. Indeed, they contradict them. I’m shocked any educated person would think otherwise. Do better.

The headlines are full of crimes committed by illegal aliens. They are still getting into the country. We uncovered how they are doing it.