I started out in America's Debate discussing wether or not Christianity was foundational to American democracy and it was the best debate I ever had.
Call me sentimental but I would like to relight that fire and hope I don't get burned in the process.

Question for debate:

Is democracy based on religion in America and can you have democracy without it?

Any intelligent response invited, all substantitive answers will be addressed.

Hmm good question?
As much as I find religion to be false I do not beleive that we could have acheived the kind of Democracy and freedom we have here today without it. Specifically Christianity.
Whether I beleive the Christos was god or just a radical philosopher/preacher is immaterial. He very clearly changed the whole premise of religious thought from the "I am God u r for my pleasure and to serve me" to the "You are special" individualism NEVER seen before in major religious doctrine.
Quite simply Christianity itself laid the foundation for the development of the Individual as a concrete philosophy and in a side note probably the foundation to someday leave religion behind. It is this indiviuality that shaped and tempered democratic thought leading to the steady evolution that gives us the current Democratic society that exists today.
So while I do beleive democracy would have continued to appear and exist for a time. I think the christian religion played a critical role in adding the importance of the individual to counter the mob rule aspects of democracy that always lead to its downfall.
Can you have democracy without it. YES,,,,,,BUT!
I do not beleive it possible to have a lasting and non oppressive democracy with out the importance of the individual and it never would have occurred without religion, specifically christianity.

EARLY Christianity was in no way a supporter of the democratic process. In my opinion there was no chance of a democracy any place the Catholic church had power. The popes wanted either all the power or at least have power over the Kings and Dictators. The Reformation was likely the turning point, even tho Martin Luther did not foresee where his efforts would take us. He wanted to reform the Catholic church, but ended up being the creator of the protestant movement.
I also believe that the founding fathers wanted freedom from religion as much as they wanted freedom of religion.
I think we can have democracy without religion, even if religion did help bring it about.

Is democracy based on religion in America and can you have democracy without it?

Democracy itself is not based on religion. The Ancient Greeks, the inventors of the concept, didn't need Christianity to know that individual rights have a place in society (albeit only for male landowners). I don't know for sure, but I doubt that the democracy in India has much to do with strict Hindu interpretation. The American Constitution has at its base the cherry-picked virtues that were inspired by the religion of the Colonies, but also ideas from secular thinkers like Voltaire, Spinoza, and Rousseau.

It is absolutely possible to have democracy without religion. There is nothing inherent in democracy that would require a religion to operate alongside it or back it up. Having said that, without Protestant institutions that encouraged individual relationships with a Higher Power, I don't know if it would be possible to have the kind of republic that we do. By individualizing worship and abandoning the institutional tradition of the Catholic Church, it was possible for people to interpret Holy Scripture and philosophical treatises on such by themselves -- with insistent assistance, but not as interpretative dictation from the Church. Similarly, we can each define what we want America to be for ourselves without having to hear it from on high.

I'm going to pop-off here and say that not only is democracy NOT based on religion, but democracy and religion are two different power centers entirely at odds with each other for control.

We all understand and are clear that democracy is a method of sharing power between all the governed.

Religion, on the other hand, is a method of hoarding power by a small elite for the benefit of the elite only. Anyone visited the Vatican lately? See anything there that might solve world hunger... like their art collection?

To be clear: I'm referring to religion, not faith. Religion is based on faith, but it's a way of using that faith to organize people into "us" and "them". The religious elite decide how that faith should be expressed, how the money should be used. With democracy, we ALL get to vote on how something should happen and consent to be governed based on that.

You can't have two different power sources in the same space without a battle for control. You can see numerous periods of conflict in our history between the secular government and the religious one.

To answer the header question first; religion is "foundational" to America in the sense that it would not have been founded without the religions persecutions that have always existed within Christianity, particularly in North West Europe.

It is not, however, fundamental to America, in the sense that you don't have to be a Christian or at all religious to be a good American.

Democracy is not based in religion any more than it is based on the English language. Both English and religion are fundamental to what America is, and America is a democratic republic, but America's democracy rests on philosphical concepts of liberty that predated Christianity by millennia, and (arguably), we hijacked by the early Church.

The individualism of Christianity doesn't originate in anything Christ is on record as having said - certainly not the rugged, frontier brand of solipsistic individualism that has come to take on most of the imagery of individualism in the USA, of which, I suspect, Christ would have taken rather a dim view. Saul of Tarsus may have mentioned individualism in passing, but it lay dormant until the Reformation, and even then was not fuly expressed until English and Scottish philosphrers of the 17th and 18th centuries got their teeth into it. Individualism is more a political concept than a relgious one.

Can you have democracy without it? Er, yes. Indeed, America goes further than most democracies I know of to separate church and state. If you want to see a democracy where religion generally and Christianity in particular is central to the political fabric, come to Britain.

The I don't think you really mean that - I guess you're talking more about a religious and religiously observant society being central to democracy, right? Again, come to Britain. We are one of the most secular societies in the world - and generally regard religious expressions by our politicians with, at best, benevolent disregard, and mostly find them rather uncomfortable. Yet we are by most reckonings pretty democratic and certainly stable and "free" in all practical respects.

What I think you are really asking, however, is "can you have democracy (in America) without it?". To which I would have to say, as long as the society is as "god-fearing" as it currently is, or even more than 50% observant, then no, I don't think American democracy would work if it didn't somehow reflect Christianity. It will be many years before an American politician can make a major speech without saying "God Bless America" at least once during the course of it.

(An analogy might be "God Save the Queen" in UK politics, which nobody really says any more except in certain proscribed circumstances.)

Is democracy based on religion in America and can you have democracy without it?

Religion is more of an additive to the mix than anything else. Being as the majority of the drafters of the constitution and the bill of rights were religious in one way or another, and all shared the same basic tenants for moral and societal norms wih the populous. This makes it easier to govern. This is namely because most people will govern themselves in an acceptable manner. Which is still the case, for the most part, today.

I think you can have democracy without interweaving religious tenants into the mix. It does make it harder to govern and usually a laissez faire approach does not work as well. People will do what they want to period, to govern this you have to be able to govern peoples more aggregious actions. Adding something above and beyond any secular law helps in this.

Democracy has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

People fled to American to flee religious persecution in Europe, but they essentially did the same thing here in America. We have the famous Salem witch hunts and so forth.

Even today religious leader and followers are so hypocritical in judging and condemning people just because their opinions differ. Yes there are definitely wonderful religious people but sadly they are outnumbered by the sanctimonious.

I grew up in a religious family(never hypocritical or sanctimonious) but whenever I see the majority of religious leaders today it makes me sick to see what their true intentions are.

This is actually two questions.

Is democracy based on religion in America?

Yes, democracy is based, to some extent, on religion in these United States. As Julian pointed out, the reason that many Europeans came to America was to escape religious persecution and to worship in the way they saw fit.

Can we have democracy without religion?

Are you asking specifically if we can have democracy without Christianity? My answer would be yes. However, even in ancient Greece, which is considered the birthplace of democracy, there was polytheistic religion. To what degree the worship of these deities affected the formation and operation of Greek democracy, I do not know. But there is often a moral code of some sort cited by those who seek to establish democracy, and moral codes are more often than not attributed to deities.

In early America, the white settlers adopted a lot of the Iroquois system of government. The Iroquois had their own religion as well. So is it possible to have democracy without any religion to speak of in a culture? I don't know. Is it possible to have a society without religion of some sort?

As a side note, I am no more willing than anyone else here to see a theocracy established. It is one thing to practice one's own belief system, and it's an entirely different thing to try to impose it on the general populace.

The Great Law to which you prefer was completely bound up with with the religious beliefs of the Five Tribes; yet it was essentially secular. Any tribe could in theory join so long as they acknowledged the theistic elements; but their was no structural practice of faith necessary.

The Greeks on the other hand (and more specifically the Athenians) organized their version of democracy in a more drawn out fashion. After a series of tyrannies, some positive and some negative, a democracy was eventually formed (after the successive innovations of Draco, Solon and Cleisthenes set out a platform) without any substantive religious content.

Paladin is right I think; you CAN have a religion-less democracy; but you'd need a religious-less society first and fortunately we have yet to achieve one.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens."

(George Washington's Farwell Adress)

It is remarkable and even traditional for Presidents to not only affirm religion as central to our democracy but to embrace it. I have yet to see a disparaging remark made by a U.S. president to contradict this. Here are a few examples:

"And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.
---John Adams

I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow-citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness; and to that good Being who has blessed us by the gifts of civil and religious freedom, who watched over and prospered the labors of our fathers and has hitherto preserved to us institutions far exceeding in excellence those of any other people, let us unite in fervently commending every interest of our beloved country in all future time.
---William Henry Harrison

"At its full flowering, freedom is the first principle of society; this society, Western society,"And yet freedom cannot exist alone. And that's why the theme for your bicentennial is so very apt: learning, faith, and freedom. Each reinforces the others, each makes the others possible. For what are they without each other?"
---Ronald Reagon


"Religious freedom is perhaps the most precious of all American liberties -- called by many our 'first freedom.' Many of the first European settlers in North America sought refuge from religious persecution in their native countries. Since that time, people of faith and religious institutions have played a central role in the history of this Nation. In the First Amendment, our Bill of Rights recognizes the twin pillars of religious liberty: the constitutional protection for the free exercise of religion, and the constitutional prohibition of the establishment of religion by the state. Our Nation's founders knew that religion helps to give our people the character without which a democracy cannot survive.
---William Jefferson Clinton

I see no way that democracy will be further developed in America or the world without the pillar of religion as a vital support. I just wanted to point out that the men who have led the world's most successfull democracy all affirmed the vital role of religion.

Exactly how do you envision democracy being "further developed in America"? This is a statement that begs for more details.

As for Presidents mentioning religion in their speeches: what would you do if 90+% of your governed believed in a religion? Ignore the giant elephant in the room? Or do what Republicans have been doing for the past few years and trying to claim that your opponent is "godless" or "anti-religion"?

As for going forward, check out this study: The Vanishing Protestant Majority

If you jump to the appendices near the back, you'll see that the number of Protestants is shrinking dramatically... AND you'll see that the number of people identifying themselves as having NO religion is clearly increasing. If these trends continue, how much longer before Presidents no longer need to acknowledge religion or say "...and god bless America" at the end of every speech? A few decades?

Concerning the study, The Vanishing Protestant Majority
The survey was of 2765 people, a fairly small number considering our population.
But the trend is entirely feasible. Catholics do promote larger families, while most protestants do not. The study did place Mormons in with Protestants based on similarity of beliefs, and Mormons also promote large families, but they are still far behind Catholics in that respect. They have a long term head start.
I tend to think that this kind of study is flawed. Lots of us will respond to that kind of question less than truthfully. We probably haven't been to church in years but are reluctant to say that we are "lapsed", as the Catholics might say if they are inactive.
The important part of Christianity, whether catholic or protestant, is the teachings that tell us to be kind to one another. Whether or not we ackowledge that the "golden rule" predates Christianity isn't relevant; Christianity has long been the major source of the teachings that make us want to believe that we deserve equality of treatment by others.
But now that Democracy is firmly established, I doubt that the loss of a majority of Christians (protestant or not) in our population is going to seriously affect its continuance.

What a remarkable question! I would say that this is at the very least, substantive. Since the forum is focused on the historical then prehaps we should look at the role of religion in the forming of democracy. America represents the first real attempt at making a democracy into a viable political system. Sure the Greeks talked about it but they never had the slightest clue how a person without substantial property could influence statecraft.

We are all aware of the dangers of useing religion to further our political goals. We are also aware that this is met with a wall of seperation in the Constitution which has been called our first right as Americans. What concerns me the most is that religion was such an important part of Americans forming the government that we all celebrate as liberty in motion and yet we forget that American democracy was at its foundation, religious.

When Jefferson answered the Danbury Baptists about the establishment of a Federal church he described the legal obstical as a 'wall of seperation'. I think we have forgotten why that wall was erected in the first place. That wall was erected to prevent the corruption of the genuine article of religion. Why, in this age of commerce and pragmatic secularism is this important? The answer is simply this, no democracy has ever been forged on purly secular principles, there must be a moral consensus.

People are fighting and dying in the Middle East over this very issue and it all comes down to religious conviction. Now we can sit here and rail against the evils of religion gone bad or we can understand the profoundly moral influence religion has on statecraft. Democracy is as humanistic as anything the Greeks ever invisioned as a perfect expression of the perfect human condition. America embrace religion as its inception as the foundational moral compass of a democracy, how can we continue as a free people and a world power without relgion. I leave you to you own conscience and convictions to consider this.

I think a case can be made that American Democracy was at its foundation "anti-religious control" of government. Or at the very least anti-influence.

And the wall of separation serves 2 purposes, to prevent religion from corrupting government as well as keeping government from corrupting religion. The same basic human nature problems exist in both organizations. Neither needs the other's help when it comes to being corrupt.

No Federal church and no Theocracy, thanks to wise founding fathers.
They were well aware of the problems back in England and pretty much all of Europe. Religion was already thoroughly corrupted, especially in the Catholic church, and their influence on likewise already corrupt governments was powerful. The church and governments of Europe had been conspiring for hundreds of years to control the general populace, and it certainly was not a benevolent control.

I assume you are aware that at the point where the Decleration of Independence and the Constititution where being written Americans were deeply religious. You speak of the wisdom of the founding fathers and yet you have only passing remarks for their religious convictions. What was the source of this wisdom?

I would be interested in seeing what you think about John Locke and his treatise on toleration. I do not mean to be confrontational, I am only curious. If you have the time and the patients I would like you to take a look at this.

A Letter Concerning Toleration

I realize that religion has a problem with politics and science and should be kept seperate but there is nothing to bar it from having an influence in both. Locke's concern expressed in this letter was at its core religious, I think that is obvious.