Add This to your List of Fundamentalist Mindfucks

I was having a discussion with a fundamentalist Christian, who I'm assuming, based on his argument position, is also a Christian Dominionist.  We got back to the whole First Amendment deal, but with a different spin than usual.  Instead of the usual "the First Amendment means freedom of religion, not freedom from religion", this person tried to argue that the First Amendment was speaking of religion only in terms of the Christian religion.  In other words, everyone in America could be whatever denomination of Christianity they wanted, but implicitly, everyone must be Christian.

This argument may have some weight historically; since the first pilgrims came to the colonies to escape religious persecution, and since the many protestant denominations were worried about the installation of an official denomination at the expense of everyone else, the First Amendment was written so that no single sect could dominate the rest.  In that era, Christianity was probably the only major religion in the new states, and so religion was implied to refer to the various sects of Christianity.  However, the Founders deliberate left the wording of the First Amendment broad, and their personal correspondences make it clear that no sect of any religion is to be installed as official.

In terms of connotations, the fundamentalist's argument may have had some weight.  But the person I was discussing this with was trying to play it off that the actual definition of religion, as in the dictionary definition, referred to Christianity.  Noah Webster's dictionary (which came out in 1828, long after the Bill of Rights) has four definitions of religion which strongly favor Christianity, but none of which say outright that religion = Christianity.

Even if it were the case that religion was defined as Christianity by one American lexicographer in the 1800s, the definitions of words vary over time and between languages, and language is a human construct.  Furthermore, even if his argument were 100% accurate, it would mean that he endorses discrimination based on religion and thinks it is codified by law into the Constitution.

I found it funny that this Bible-believing evangelical would use the manmade construct of a manmade authority to back up his divine claim... by which I mean I found it incredibly hypocritical and almost boring, if he and his Christian Dominionist ilk weren't so dangerous to freedom in the United States.

webstersdictionary1828.com/Quo…

webstersdictionary1828.com/Hom…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Web…

candst.tripod.com/tnppage/qmad…