President-elect Barack Obama's choice of Rick Warren to deliver the inaugural invocation drew one kind of protest. Whether the evangelical pastor offers the prayer in the name of Jesus may draw another. At George W. Bush's 2001 swearing-in, the Revs. Franklin Graham and Kirbyjon Caldwell were criticized for invoking Christ. The distinctly Christian reference at a national civic event offended some, and even prompted a lawsuit.

Warren did not answer directly when asked whether he would dedicate his prayer to Jesus. In a statement Tuesday to The Associated Press, Warren would say only that, "I'm a Christian pastor so I will pray the only kind of prayer I know how to pray."

IS THERE NOTHING ELSE TO WORRY ABOUT OTHER THAN WHOSE NAME IS USED IN A PRAYER. We are mostly a Christian nation, we speak of Christ and if you don't want to pray that prayer, don't! Pray to your god whatever it may be but lets get real people why do we focus on the most ridiculous thing in times like these? Let us be happy to get rid of 8 years of Bush policies, 8 years of the demolition of civil rights guised as security, 8 years of misguided policies that have only isolated us from the world and diminished our influence throughout the world. Let us be happy and look forward to opening a new chapter in American culture that has finally demonstrated that yes, we are the beacon of hope that can look past its history of racial bigotry. Let us look for ways of cooperation and let those who call for tolerance be tolerant of a prayer that really hurts no one.

The United States is most certainly not a "Christian" nation. This country was founded on principles of freedom which included the freedom of religion. However, if our President wishes to be inaugurated under a Christian God, it's his choice to do so.

Lets be reasonable here...first it was not found for freedom...second even the founding fathers were Christian is some form or another. It is ackowledged in our money, on every televsion show that has holiday celebrations. It has never even been put into question until the athiest bandwagon mongers started screaming for their so called rights. Read Abraham Lincoln. I don't need to make the case that this is "Christian Nation" whether we act like it or not.

And besides let them pray to their god and stop worrying about everyone else. That is called tolerance...the same people who preach it so much are the same who never live by it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Liberty is freedom. This nation WASN'T founded on any religious backing whatsoever.

The fact he used the word created signifies their ackowledgment of a creator.....God.....yes and when we say God in the US we know of whom we speak....as I said until recently there has never been an issue with this being a Christian nation.....80 percent of the nation calls themselves Christian.....The laws are based on jewish ordaniances....everything about the US screams Chrisitan in its make up and besides that you have missed the whole point of the post...............sadly, not to abnormal here on bloop.

I'm pretty sure the word "Creator" is a term used to signify one's own personal God, signified by the word "their" instead of "the". If someone with a different religious background would read the Declaration of Independence, they would read it and think of their own god, not the Christian god. There is a constant issue with this being a Christian nation, and there has been since the 1800s.

A few men traveled half the world to reach a place where they can practice their own religion without being persecuted by the Church of England. Those men were the founding fathers of the United States of America.

And no, I got the point of the post, I'm just pointing out your glaring logical flaws.

Actually, Creator refers to the Diest God (as our founding fathers were Diest)

Oh, I didn't realize you were 232 years old.

I'm not, I am just a history major and a poltical science major who has studied primary and secondary documents on the subject, at length btw, and taken multiple classes from different politically affiliated and historical opinionated professors with PhDs.

And I took 3rd grade language arts, and I can tell you that "their Creator" means THEIR creator. As an English major, I can tell you, judging by the language in which the document was written that there is no indication to a Christian God when "their Creator" is written. The country, as stated in another post that wasn't mine, was founded based on the pursuit of religious freedom.

Transit: The reason many English, Welsh, Scottish and Irish left is not just because of famine in Ireland, but due to lack of religious freedom as you had no choice but to follow the Monarchs religion.

She speaks the truth.

I can agree with that statement to an extent. Europeans did flee to the American continents to escape the religious expectations and doctines of certain Monarchs, but you cannot argue what they set up once they arrived promoted religious freedom. It was simply an escape from one location that enforced a certain belief system to another where a different but preferred belief system was equally enforced. The Puritains, for example, were quite rigid with their religious beliefs and did not tolerate anything outside of their set standards. Missing church could be a punishable offense.

Actually, 'Creator' could apply to anything. Certainly it indicates that there's some form of godhead behind our creation (although this godhead could be considered Entropy, Gaia, or what-have-you), but nothing points to it being the Christian God, Bible Man.

The Treaty of Tripoli directly states that we are not a Christian nation as well.

And yet there is considerable dispute about whether the Arabic version of the treaty read and signed by the representatives of Tripoli even had the famous words included (they are not present, as was discovered in about 1930, in the surviving Arabic version). Nor does that line appear in the treaty signed 2 years after the orginal which was rendered void when they once again started to attack US ships

Just as you claimed that the Declaration of Independence is indicative of our founding fathers' beliefs (or at the very lest our nation's apparently-Christian core), how is this not? It's a treaty. Bound by law.

btw, the Declaration (even if it does have Christian references, which it doesn't) has no weight when it comes to law. At the time of its writing it was just a document saying, "hay britguy we going this way, you go that way. peace yo."

There have been several shows on lately (TLC, History channel, MSNBC etc etc) that have been about this very topic.
All agree that infact the USA was based on a very Christian principal. It wasnt until Murray v. Curlett, (374 U.S. 203 1963) that anyone thought otherwise. And even then if you look at the wording of the ruling it is broad and generalized.

^ broad and generalized.

It's a treaty. Bound by law Its what supposedly the treaty said. There is no copy in the english langage of what the orginal truely said. Only "hear-say" of what a poet wrote that had little to no authourity to write it as he did.
The Arabic version of that treaty which most would agree should be word for word as the english version makes no mention of that line what-so-ever.
Even if the treaty itself became law, that law was instantly done away with the moment that treaty was broken. The 2nd and lastest treaty makes no mention of religion what-so-ever.
nobeleifs.org which is one of the main groups that fights against the notion that we were created as a christian nation, and backs those who want God removed from everything even acknowledges the following the Treaty of Tripoli under agreement only lasted a few years and no longer has legal status

The freethinkers i.e athesits even admit to the following The treaty remained in effect for only four years, replaced, after more war with Tripoli, with another treaty that does not have the famous words included. One or two later treaties even allude to the Trinity. *If* the major claim of separationists regarding the treaty were a legal one, these facts might be fatal to our fellow free thinkers.


And while the declaration might not of been a legal binding law, or made into law we would not have the consitution or our ammendments.
(ironic though that in the consitution they bothered to use "in the year of our Lord" in the date if we were never ment to be a christian nation) It is the basis of us as a nation, not the law but the reason WHY we wanted to form our own country

Let me re-phrase that There is no surviving orginal copy of the english version. It was re-printed in a hand full of newspapers, but no surviving hand-written (as it would of been) version.

Being as I've never seen the original Arabic version of the document, I can accept that the article won't or probably doesn't exist.

However, I think you missed my point. Regardless of whether it's bound by law, it'd still indicate the signers' stance(s) that this isn't a christian nation, or that they didn't want it to be viewed as such. But, again, if it doesn't exist, then it doesn't exist.

Additionally, I've read and been told several times that dating something as being "in the year of our Lord" has no real religious significance.

woohoo college! And to that last statement, even if it did have some sort of religious significance, there are multiple religions with multiple lords; nothing points towards Christianity in general though.

You are so right. One person's beleif. One person who wasn't a law maker, who desperately wanted to be known as America's first epic poet. Thats who wrote the treaty. Not anyone in any type of position of power or influence.

Yup, Meghan. It was just that ONE guy. If it weren't for him, America would SOOOO be known as a Christian nation to date.

I mean, it's not like it went through and was ratified in the Senate! That'd just be silly, right? Last I checked, senators can't vote "Nay" on things they disagree with so, clearly, it was just that ONE guy who is responsible for it being pressed into law.

And that one president fella who signed it into the books? Well, I suppose he had nothing to do with it either.

You're exactly right. It was just that ONE guy. Nobody else. Nobody agreed with his stance whatsoever.

There have been several shows on lately (TLC, History channel, MSNBC etc etc) that have been about this very topic.
All agree that infact the USA was based on a very Christian principal. It wasnt until Murray v. Curlett, (374 U.S. 203 1963) that anyone thought otherwise. And even then if you look at the wording of the ruling it is broad and generalized.

Our Declaration of Independence is full of references to God. "the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ..... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence"

What freedom of religion is - is that no person is subject to any one person's interptation of what religion is.

"the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, ..... they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..... with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence"

Sure, a God... but not the Christian one. Deists, yo.

I had this debate with a friend of mine recently. Yeah, this country was founded partially due to the want for religious freedom, but if you look at history the religious freedom they were seeking was freedom from persecution by the Catholics for being Protestant. They wanted the freedom to have their own DENOMINATIONS. But nearly all of the founding fathers were Christian.

That doesn't mean that they wanted everyone else to be Christian. Our founding fathers may have been Christian, but they didn't necessarily reflect their religious beliefs on the country was started.

inb4 Native Americans; that was a century beforehand, and done by the British.

Our country wasn't founded by Native American....Indians

What?