NLBS #48: The United States Is Not, And Never Was, A Christian Nation

a reply to: windword

You're missing the point. To single out the United States as being hypocritical in this respect misses the more important point .. that all nations are guilty of misdeeds, regardless of what religion happens to be popular within its borders.

a reply to: Guidance.Is.Internal

I'm not singling the United States out as being hypocritical, I'm displaying how it's impossible to consider the United States to be A Christian nation.

The Vatican can pretend to be one, although they look like fools doing so, but the USA can't. It has no plausible deniability like the Vatican and claims no divinity in its actions.

The United States of America is not a Christian nation. It was modeled as a democratic republic, created by the people, for the people and of the people, who aren't commanded by and don't answer to any God, but it obeys and answers to "The People".

a reply to: windword

Well you were initially saying it can't be a "Christian nation" because it violates "Christian principles", which is easily refuted with Islamic counterexamples. If you do not accept those counterexamples, then what you're really arguing is that there is no bone-fide religious nation out there, because it is impractical to run a nation 100% in compliance with old religious texts. Especially considering that religious texts often contradict themselves. If you are going to define "nation" in such a way that the predominant religion practiced by those living within its borders is NOT taken into account, then I agree with your statement, however such a definition of "nation" doesn't really serve much purpose.

a reply to: windword

You know if the most prominent founding fathers were alive today and ran for office they would be unelectable do to the outrage from the Christian right because of the things they said about Christianity.

Going to bed now but I will leave a few quotes.

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over the earth." --- Thomas Jefferson, from "Notes on Virginia"

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?" --- John Adams, letter to F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both there (England) and in New England."--- Benjamin Franklin

What truth there may be in the story that Mary, before she was married to Joseph, was kept by one of the Roman soldiers, and was with child by him, I leave to be settled between the Jews and Christians. The story however has probability on its side, for her husband Joseph suspected and was jealous of her, and was going to put her away. "Joseph, her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was going to put her away, privately." (Matt. i, 19).

I have already said that "whenever we step aside from the first article (that of believing in God), we wander into a labyrinth of uncertainty," and here is evidence of the justness of the remark, for it is impossible for us to decide who was Jesus Christ's father.
Thomas Paine

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." --- James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785

"Let it simply be asked, where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion."

George Washington, Farewell address

The name of Jesus Christ is not mentioned even once in the vast collection of Washington's published letters. He refers to Providence in numerous letters, but he used the term as a synonym for Destiny or Fate. Bishop White, who knew him well for many years, wrote after Washington's death that he had never heard him express an opinion on any religious subject. He added that although Washington was "serious and attentive" in church, he never saw him kneel in prayer.

They would be completely unelectable. lol

a reply to: Guidance.Is.Internal

In all honesty, I don't know enough about the laws of Islamic nations or even what the Quran says, and whatever holy books or "Imans" dictate, to make an intelligent comparison, other than that I know that Islamic nations refer to the Quran and the USA does NOT refer to the Bible.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

I can see why there is a confusion. Too many people are confused about this thread. Usually when Christians say this is and was a Christian nation they mean something else.

If the majority of people were or are Christians then you can say it's a nation of Christians though that would be inaccurate.

When someone talks about Islam nations what do you think it means? Be honest.

The word Christian is an adjective when applied to nation. "Christian nation." The nation itself isn't Christian. The nation may have Christians in the majority but the nation ITSELF isn't Christian.

I'm admittedly confused... It seems to you that separating one from the other is so simple. I see semantics... Are a christian nation and a nation of christians really that different? Even if the USA is nation of christians does that somehow imply a perceived seperation of church and state? Or is there something else going on here that I'm simple failing to understand?

When someone talks about Islamic Nations I assume that are trying to tie church and state together to further their own political agenda... Huh? That's weird. That sounds remarkably like what I just did...

Now I'm really confused...

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

I can see why there is a confusion. Too many people are confused about this thread. Usually when Christians say this is and was a Christian nation they mean something else.

If the majority of people were or are Christians then you can say it's a nation of Christians though that would be inaccurate.

When someone talks about Islam nations what do you think it means? Be honest.

The word Christian is an adjective when applied to nation. "Christian nation." The nation itself isn't Christian. The nation may have Christians in the majority but the nation ITSELF isn't Christian.

Now that SHOULD make perfect sense... However what is a nation if not the sum of it's constituents? A nation of christians is different from a christian nation I guess... but no matter how much you try to remove the christianity from the politics you just can't.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: hudsonhawk69

If the U.S.of A. is not a christian nation then why do some surveys show that in the vicinity of 75% of Americans identify themselves as christian?

It has to do with the history of how the USA was started.

But when it was formally "established" by those who wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, it was FIRMLY established that the USA would NOT be a theocracy like England was.

And while they achieved that... What is the difference? Instead of having a few high church officials making the decisions you have a nation of christians making choices through democracy or even christian politicians pushing their own agenda.
It's just semantics. Do you feel some need to be different from islamists?

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
If the U.S.of A. is not a christian nation then why do some surveys show that in the vicinity of 75% of Americans identify themselves as christian?

If most of people that shop at a particular Piggly Wiggly are Christians, does that make the Piggly Wiggly a Christian business?

What a creative way to twist the truth! americans are not customers in a shop... They would be more like the bricks and mortar that make up the building... So yes! When christians build a church I call it a christian church. They built it. They all worship there. Does it really matter if they didn't put their name on the sign? Who are we trying to kid here?

originally posted by: Gorman91
You're not a politician.

At the local level I am, sort of.

I was not sworn in with a Bible.

originally posted by: hudsonhawk69
I'm admittedly confused... It seems to you that separating one from the other is so simple. I see semantics... Are a christian nation and a nation of christians really that different? Even if the USA is nation of christians does that somehow imply a perceived seperation of church and state? Or is there something else going on here that I'm simple failing to understand?

It really is that simple actually. A Christian Nation uses Christian dogma in its laws. A nation of Christians is a nation that has secular laws, but has a majority of Christians in it. This prevents laws like the first Commandment being legal law. As an agnostic, I would never want to be forced to honor the Christian god. Ever.

When someone talks about Islamic Nations I assume that are trying to tie church and state together to further their own political agenda... Huh? That's weird. That sounds remarkably like what I just did...

Now I'm really confused...

When politicians talk about Islamic Nations, they mean nations that have installed Islam as a state religion and uses Islamic dogma in their laws. These nations execute atheists or persecute people for speaking out against Islam. They force your to honor Islam traditions and not live and worship what you want.

A Christian Nation without the separation of church and state would have the tools it required to maintain it's majority and power, even if 90% of the population decided they really wanted to worship within another religious framework.
And well an armed revolt would probably follow.

Our gov't was set up so that it wouldn't exalt any one belief system, thus that majority could turn with very little noticeable difference unless of course one of the parties managed to gain enough influence within the system to either overrule the majority or to allow the majority to oppress the minority into compliance of their belief system, both of which would probably result in armed conflict.

Weather or not the country consists of a majority of christians isn't really relevant nor is it weather or not the founders were. Regardless, neither the majority or the minority has any constitutional power to force their views on others. No elected representative should be allowed to stand up in the pubic square and use his God's desires as the reason why a certain path should be taken! If that path cannot be reasonably explained without using divine commandments and be accepted by the masses then well...it should be ignored!

And well, one of the biggest commandments that is in the Christian Doctrine is the "Thou Shall Not Lie"! I'm sorry but it's kind of hard to take the idea that this is a christian nation when our leaders are consistently lying to the voters to be elected, lying to them while in office to retain their power and further their agendas, while they are lying to all the other countries around the world to obtain their place as world super power! I've about come to the conclusion that voting a real god-fearing christian into office would be the worst thing we the people could do!! He might actually tell the truth as to what has been going on and tick the rest of the world off even more and we'd see all kinds of planes, boats and bombs dropping on us!

a reply to: hudsonhawk69

So yes! When christians build a church I call it a christian church. They built it. They all worship there. Does it really matter if they didn't put their name on the sign? Who are we trying to kid here?

The United States of America isn't a church.

i hear you OP...the Christians from Europe, Africa and the Middle East have become a REAL problem...and apparently their Pope has no intentions on quitting his alliance with the Jewish and Muslim in their wars of aggression in the United States and America.

its a shame...its really a shame for all of them.

originally posted by: mOjOm

originally posted by: Gorman91
a reply to: mOjOm

It's also been pretty clearly noted that their definition of secular is not the same as ours today.

That I might agree with. Although I'm not sure anyone has explained the difference if in fact there was a difference.

I'm also not sure if everyone even thinks of the word "Secular" the same way now either, nor uses it in the same way. I think some use it to mean "Atheistic" or "Anti-Religion" while others use it in more of a "Religion-Neutral" kind of meaning. I tend to use it in the "Neutral" sense and I think that is probably closer to how the Founders might of used it. Clearly most of them were or had some form of Religion guiding their thinking and by Secular I doubt they were trying to imply a Nation void of Faith or Religion or Spiritual Guidance or whatever. Most likely it was the idea that there was no preference toward any single religion or lack there of.

From what I understand, secular in that sense means that religion isn't put into the laws nor is it required by the population like in theocracies. There is separation of church and state, which is one of the most important concepts that America was founded on. I don't think the meaning has changed all that much, it's just the way that religious folks and and the media portray the term. It's kind of like how the term "atheist" used to be associated with evil or devil worshiping. It never meant that, it's just the media sensationalizing things as usual. Many folks seem to think that secular means atheistic or anti-religious, but it's really about separating personal faith from legislation and law making. The one guy that was asked to back up his claim that the meaning of the word has changed, ignored the request, so we all know how that goes.

originally posted by: Gorman91
a reply to: windword

You're doing that thing again. Using contemporary words and assuming they haven't changed from their ancient times. Even Martin Luther favored a secular state dude. But I doubt you would agree with his definition of it.

There is a time for the beautifully destructive and chaotic power Christianity brings to a government. I think that time nears.

Are you ever going to back that claim up that the meaning of secular has changed or are you going to just keep repeating the claim? If I'm wrong, I apologize, but you seem to be avoiding that request from a few pages back that has been made more than once. Sure, the word itself has more definitions now, but I don't see any reason why the original definition wouldn't still apply.

1. Worldly rather than spiritual. the secular affairs of the parish.
2. Not relating to religion or to a religious body; nonreligious. secular music.
3. Not bound by the full monastic rule of a religious order. Used of clergy.

#2 seems to fit the bill. Has that changed since the founding fathers? Our laws are secular, meaning they aren't dictated by religion and folks are not forced to worship a god they don't believe in.

a reply to: Barcs

To many even today Atheism is still synonymous with evil and devil worship.

Ignorance is difficult to dissolve in naught but a few generations.

a reply to: windword

Soooo then do you know what Luther was arguing when he gave those fine gentlemen the idea in his words?

a reply to: Barcs

I did. Luther's Two Kingdoms. You should probably read.

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Sort of.