As you can see on the rec list, the canard that "America was founded as a Christian nation" has made it to the level of presidential primary discourse. There's one particular historical instance that often gets twisted in support of this idea. I wrote about this in 2009, and am reposting in response to Pastor Dennis Terry, whom you can read about in Scott Wooledge's diary.
The best romantic advice I've ever received was from a friend who said, "Go by what he does, not by what he says." Taking this principle to an episode of early American history, we can see that the Second Continental Congress matched deeds to its words, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It's important to look at this episode in light of what Congress did, because what it said in the matter I'm going to tell you about has been used, and twisted, by conservative Christians to make the Founders look more enthusiastic about endorsing Christianity than they were.
Before the American Revolution, the British government forbade the printing of Bibles in America. With the Declaration of Independence, the importation of Bibles became more difficult, with the result that Bibles were increasingly difficult to come by. To address the shortage of Bibles, the Presbyterian elder Robert Aitken took upon himself the task of publishing an English Bible translation for use in the States. The Christian Broadcasting Network, among other conservative sites, highlight the correspondence between Aitken and the Congress, making it appear that the Congress was enthusiastic about Aitken's program. The CBN interprets Congresses words as their deeds, saying
Congress acted on September 12, 1782, by "highly approv[ing of] the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken."
They ignore the fact that the Congressional statement goes on to say that they
authorise him to publish this Recommendation in the manner he shall think proper (emphasis added)
Although the First Amendment hadn't been conceived of yet, this authorization to print a Bible anticipates its spirit. The Continental Congress
allowed freedom of religion in that it gave permission for anyone to print a Bible, but it did not
endorse the printing of the Bible by financing it. The risk was all Aitken's.
But as Lori Anne Ferrell* notes in her recent book, The Bible and the People, Aitken took on the financial risk of publishing his Bible translation, and
Promptly, he lost his shirt. Aitken first asked Congress to authorize his Bible and distribute it under their auspices. It refused. Next, he asked Congress to help defray his by now considerable cost overruns, a request backed by the Congress's chaplains. It refused. Aitken then went, increasingly shabby cap in hand, to the Pennsylvania General Assembly. After several months it responded - with the insultingly paltry offer of a 150 pound loan, interest free for one year only.
"It refused." Whatever verbal endorsements right-wing Christians will trumpet when citing Congressional comments on the Aitken Bible translation, the simple "it refused" is the practical context for understanding those comments. It gave Aitken an endorsement to take on the risk of publishing a Bible translation, but refused to back up that risk with a commitment to back that risk up financially. Deeds speak louder than words.
* Full disclosure: Dr. Ferrell was on my dissertation committee.
More detailed discussion of Aitken and Congress can be found in Derek Davis, Religion and the Continental Congress, 1774-1789: Contributions to Original Intent and Chris Rodda, Liars for Jesus: The Religious Right's Alternate Version of American History.