It is like Christian politicians are this huge boogeyman. What rights of yours are you concerned about? And what could they actually do to take away any of those rights?
You should be much more concerned with atheist socialist politicians. They are the ones who want to regulate everything and take away freedom.

Zobel said:

---

what do you mean when you said "should only consist?"

---

Quote:

---

i mean, you're arguing with other people and not me. i can't help you with how others might define it, sorry.

how does me saying "the government should be Christians" get anywhere near a question of how various Christians should vote or be politically aligned?

i think Christians should vote for Christians in much the same way that i think republicans should vote for republicans and democrats should vote for democrats.

Christians should not vote for people who are foreign to their faith and moral worldview - like, for example, if a pagan who practiced demonic or human sacrifice were running for office, Christians should not vote for that. Or an atheist who is opposed to the Christian faith on principle, Christians should not vote for that.

"Christians are not a monolithic political body" doesn't seem to bear any relevance here.

---

You said "the government should be Christians". If you believe the government should be "Christians" how else can this be construed?

dermdoc said:

---

It is like Christian politicians are this huge boogeyman. What rights of yours are you concerned about? And what could they actually do to take away any of those rights?
You should be much more concerned with atheist socialist politicians. They are the ones who want to regulate everything and take away freedom.

---

I'm not worried about a politician having any religious background. That's a personal thing for them and it's fine. My problem is with the belief that ONLY Christians should be allowed in government.

TPS_Report said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It is like Christian politicians are this huge boogeyman. What rights of yours are you concerned about? And what could they actually do to take away any of those rights?
You should be much more concerned with atheist socialist politicians. They are the ones who want to regulate everything and take away freedom.

---

I'm not worried about a politician having any religious background. That's a personal thing for them and it's fine. My problem is with the belief that ONLY Christians should be allowed in government.

---

I think you misread zobel.

That section of my post was in reference to your statement that "government should be Christian in that it should be representative of the nation that it governs". But that statement is practically meaningless. A large majority Christian democracy would by definition typically have a Christian government in that it was the one chosen by Christians, but that tells you nothing about what it believes or how it functions. Only very recently have non-Christians been a meaningful voting bloc. If that is your definition of Christian nation it just doesn't tell you anything useful.

Zobel said:

---

look man, i told you i'm not playing your sealioning game and i also don't want to do trolling chicken.

---

You said the "government should be Christians"... plural.

Do you believe the United States Government should only consist of Christians? It's a simple question. Your previous statement leads me to believe the answer is yes. However, I could be wrong. If so, please explain what you meant.

dermdoc said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It is like Christian politicians are this huge boogeyman. What rights of yours are you concerned about? And what could they actually do to take away any of those rights?
You should be much more concerned with atheist socialist politicians. They are the ones who want to regulate everything and take away freedom.

---

I'm not worried about a politician having any religious background. That's a personal thing for them and it's fine. My problem is with the belief that ONLY Christians should be allowed in government.

---

I think you misread zobel.

---

That's entirely possible, which is why I'm asking for clarification.

Charlie Kirk gave the best answer to the question of whether or not the US was a Christian nation the I have ever heard articulated. I won't do it justice so I will just leave it here:



IMO, that alone does not spell out why the US has been so successful. There have been many other countries that have been perhaps more Christian but haven't matched our success. What made the US so successful was the marrying of Judeo-Christian principles with Greek tradition and thus forming the ideal example of Western Civilization. As beautifully explained here:



We are now becoming a deracinated society. A greater number of citizens now believe they are their own god and are free to create their own reality. We have lost that Greek tradition of rationalization to the point that we can no longer point out, or even discuss, what is true. This will make it increasingly difficulty to right the ship. The more we separate from our roots, to faster we will continue to wilt.

dermdoc said:

---

We are not a theocracy. And hopefully will never be one. But we were founded on Judeo Christian principles. And to deny that is stupid.

---

I agree 100% with this, but to me this does not equate into a label of "Christian Nation." The values and principles were critical to the formation of early America, but from my (negative) perspective they seem to be in the distant past. We have instead embraced the melding of other ideas, religions, and thoughts in the name of progressivism and tolerance. Maybe we began as a "Christian Nation" which I might still debate, but we are far from that at this point. In the days of the monarchy in Israel, they were given kings only so that those kings would submit to THE ultimate king, God. That is not happening folks.

TPS_Report said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It is like Christian politicians are this huge boogeyman. What rights of yours are you concerned about? And what could they actually do to take away any of those rights?
You should be much more concerned with atheist socialist politicians. They are the ones who want to regulate everything and take away freedom.

---

I'm not worried about a politician having any religious background. That's a personal thing for them and it's fine. My problem is with the belief that ONLY Christians should be allowed in government.

---

I think Zobel has made it clear that Christians should vote for Christians.

I don't think anyone is saying non Christians should be barred from democratically attainable positions, I just think most of us agree that we should vote for Christians.

The vast majority of non Christians in our own government are some of the worst, and non Christians ability to run governments world wide isnt a very stellar track record. Thats just an objective fact.

Quote:

---

The vast majority of non Christians in our own government are some of the worst, and non Christians ability to run governments world wide isnt a very stellar track record. Thats just an objective fact.

---

I wonder who you're even talking about here as there simply aren't a huge number of politicians who wielded any kind of substantial political power that didn't also claim to be Christian. Or is this a case of "No true Christian" would do whatever it is you have in mind?

It's a bad example. Most of the political support for abortion rights comes from pro-choice Christian politicians. Which again makes this sound like a "No true Scotsman" type argument. If Christian government is good because you've defined any bad government as non-Christian from the start then this is a silly, pointless argument at its core.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Rocag said:

---

It's a bad example. Most of the political support for abortion rights comes from pro-choice Christian politicians. Which again makes this sound like a "No true Scotsman" type argument. If Christian government is good because you've defined any bad government as non-Christian from the start then this is a silly, pointless argument at its core.

---

The point was, they may profess to be Christians but their support of abortion should give them, and anyone who would vote for them because of their claim they are Christian, pause.

---

Agree

Silent For Too Long said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

It is like Christian politicians are this huge boogeyman. What rights of yours are you concerned about? And what could they actually do to take away any of those rights?
You should be much more concerned with atheist socialist politicians. They are the ones who want to regulate everything and take away freedom.

---

I'm not worried about a politician having any religious background. That's a personal thing for them and it's fine. My problem is with the belief that ONLY Christians should be allowed in government.

---

I think Zobel has made it clear that Christians should vote for Christians.

I don't think anyone is saying non Christians should be barred from democratically attainable positions, I just think most of us agree that we should vote for Christians.

The vast majority of non Christians in our own government are some of the worst, and non Christians ability to run governments world wide isnt a very stellar track record. Thats just an objective fact.

---

Christians should vote for Christians? Shouldn't we just vote for whomever we believe is the best candidate? I don't care if a candidate is Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, Atheist, etc. If their policy positions are most in alignment with mine, that's who I should pick.

If an atheist candidate said, "We should abolish all religion", I would not vote for that candidate. If a Catholic candidate said only Catholicism should be legal in America, I wouldn't vote for that candidate either.

There are lots of crummy governments out there. The idea that Christianity is a main determiner in whether a country's government is good or bad is likely mistaking correlation for causation.

If you look at the governments of Central and South America, almost every one of those countries is corrupt af. I don't believe that is due to their governments being almost exclusively Christians. Just like I don't believe Sweden, Denmark, or Norway are considered among the least corrupt countries because of Christians in their governments.

law and policy don't exist apart from the moral foundation that gives them meaning. political alignment ultimately depends on some shared conception of the Good which is a philosophical concept. For Christians the faith is true philosophy.

I think the primary issue that they are trying to address is one that affects everyone: how can we know that the person we vote for will actually support the policies that we ourselves support? In a sense, labels like religion and political party are just quick ways to give you a hint about how an elected official will act after being elected. But no simple label is entirely accurate. I'd assume most people who pay attention to politics will be able to quickly point to examples of politicians who have let them down by governing/legislating in ways completely opposite to what they campaigned on. Even so, voting for someone who at least claims to agree with you seems to be the safer bet compared to the alternative.

But yeah, I would also agree that any government which compels its citizens to accept a particular religious belief is inherently flawed, no matter what that religious belief happens to be.

TPS_Report said:

---

Is the United State A Christian Nation?

---

No

Quote:

---

And if so...

What is the evidence to support this belief?

---

First Amendment of the Constitution

Quote:

---

What does being a Christian Nation actually mean?

---

The established religion of the nation is Christianity.

Quote:

---

Lastly, why does it matter?

---

It shows our country's feelings toward state religions.

As Zobel alluded to earlier, this entire conversation is a bit anachronistic because we are doing things like jumping from the Constitution limiting powers of the federal government to "we are not a Christian Nation".

It was clearly expected that states would have their own Christian laws, including (gasp), state churches that you had in Massachusetts and Connecticut well into the 19th century.

Less than 100 years ago you had a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling against Sunday baseball which stated that

"Christianity is part of the common law of Pennsylvania (Updegraph v. Com., 11 S. & R. 393) and its people are Christian people. Sunday is the holy day among Christians. No one we think would contend that professional baseball partakes in any way of the nature of holiness and when contrasted with things which do, it is bound to be categoried as worldly..."
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4091893/commonwealth-v-amer-baseball-club-of-phila/

First amendement is perfect example. It was designed to 'disable' the national government from establishing religion.

You can look in the congressional register of 1789 and see that the concern with the original proposed language was that it could be later misinterpreted by federal judges to do the reverse of the original intent. Rather than protecting the cause of Christian laws and establishments from federal interference it would do the reverse!

"Mr. HUNTINGTON
Said that he feared with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such a latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion...The ministers of their congregations to the eastward, were maintained by the contributions of those who belonged to their society; the expence of building meeting-houses was contributed in the same manner, these things were regulated by bye laws: If an action was brought before a federal court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers, or building of places of worship might be construed into a religious establishment."
https://www.consource.org/document/the-congressional-register-1789-8-15/

This is why the language was carefully debated and worded:

It evolved from "No religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed." to, after a bunch of iterations, eventually "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

But as we know this was all for naught as the Supreme Court expanded its power in the mid-20th century to explicitly strike down any state and local laws it sees as being Christian or religious.

Exactly what they (in 1789) feared would happen and tried their best to protect against.

It was also much debated whether a religious holiday like Thanksgiving should be established by the federal government, but the pro side won:

https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/thanksgiving-proclamation-of-1789

Quote:

---

By the President of the United States of America.
A Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favorand whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be

That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanksfor his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nationfor the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence, which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late warfor the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyedfor the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately institutedfor the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressionsto enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctuallyto render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyedto protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shown kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord

To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and usand generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go. Washington

---

There's an old joke that 'if Aspirin were invented today the FDA would never approve it'.

The same is true here. The standard American public discourse, moral assumptions, legislation (specifically laws around sabbath, blasphemy, oaths, religious tests,etc), state/local tax support for churches and ministers, religious civic ceremonies and religious education, official proclamations of prayer and thanksgiving...none of it would be approved by today's Supreme Court.

I think we might be cautious in answering the original question and in deciding how much weight to put on the founders' values or intentions.

For example, are we a racist country? Or sexist? Or one that is okay with poor treatment of indigenous people? Well, based on our original set of laws, opinions, and the values of most (maybe not all) of the founding fathers who have potential to be quoted in this thread, certainly we are. But, the country and its values have changed.

So, to answer the question 'are we a Christian nation?', I think we might look to our collective current values rather than our founders. And I think we are a pluralist nation which values the freedom to practice a variety of religions, including Christianity. Christianity will always be part of our history. That doesn't mean there can't be room for other ideas now or in the future.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I think we might be cautious in answering the original question and in deciding how much weight to put on the founders' values or intentions.

For example, are we a racist country? Or sexist? Or one that is okay with poor treatment of indigenous people? Well, based on our original set of laws, opinions, and the values of most (maybe not all) of the founding fathers who have potential to be quoted in this thread, certainly we are. But, the country and its values have changed.

So, to answer the question 'are we a Christian nation?', I think we might look to our collective current values rather than our founders. And I think we are a pluralist nation which values the freedom to practice a variety of religions, including Christianity. Christianity will always be part of our history. That doesn't mean there can't be room for other ideas now or in the future.

---

That stuff is standard fare across all civilizations throughout history. It doesn't help differentiate anything.

The "Christian" attribute would be useful because it's a distinguishing civilizational characteristic.

It would be like saying we can't define America as a republic based on equality before the law because the founders were racist and sexist.

If the category of 'nations based on equality' can range from equality for everyone to equality only for one group, then that feels like a pretty watered down category.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

Is the United State A Christian Nation?

---

No

Quote:

---

And if so...

What is the evidence to support this belief?

---

First Amendment of the Constitution

Quote:

---

What does being a Christian Nation actually mean?

---

The established religion of the nation is Christianity.

Quote:

---

Lastly, why does it matter?

---

It shows our country's feelings toward state religions.

---

I believe you can be a Christian nation without having Christianity established as the national religion.

Quote:

---

For example, are we a racist country?

---

Doesn't this kind of prove the point though?

Because I think you are implying that, yes, the US is a racist country.

I don't want to put words into your mouth but I think you'd probably say something like "At it's founding the US was a racist country. We're far less racist today but unfortunately we're still a racist country, although I think it's lessening over time" or something like that.

Serotonin said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

What does being a Christian Nation actually mean?

---

Bro you're asking the question, you gotta define this first. Otherwise you'll get 20 different answers based on 20 different sets of criteria based on how they are trying to interpret what you mean by the question.

---

This is still something no one bothered doing. So the discussion is talking past each other.

Without defining the term you don't get far. I'd also argue that the US is notably different today then at it's founding depending on your definition here.

Serotonin said:

---

Quote:

---

For example, are we a racist country?

---

Doesn't this kind of prove the point though?

Because I think you are implying that, yes, the US is a racist country.

I don't want to put words into your mouth but I think you'd probably say something like "At it's founding the US was a racist country. We're far less racist today but unfortunately we're still a racist country, although I think it's lessening over time" or something like that.

---

Racist people exist today, but I wouldn't define America as being a specifically or categorically racist country. Today's laws are meant to apply equally across racial lines and most modern values in America reinforce a value system that supports equal treatment and dignity to all races. This is in contrast to America circa 1776.

Where I was headed is to argue that what America is defined as today need not be held hostage by our founders. Just because our founders were 'x', does not mean that we are an 'x' country today.

For the record, I don't object to America being categorized as a Christian nation in the context of identifying / associating nations with the values or philosophies that were important at its founding. But, by that standard, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, and the most secular of European countries are all 'Christian nations' as well. This relates to the 'watered down' comment I made earlier. If being a 'Christian nation' simply refers to a nation's origin story, then it serves more as a historical category rather than an indicator of what the people of that nation value.

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

Is the United State A Christian Nation?

---

No

Quote:

---

And if so...

What is the evidence to support this belief?

---

First Amendment of the Constitution

Quote:

---

What does being a Christian Nation actually mean?

---

The established religion of the nation is Christianity.

Quote:

---

Lastly, why does it matter?

---

It shows our country's feelings toward state religions.

---

I believe you can be a Christian nation without having Christianity established as the national religion.

---

Not if Christian nation means the established religion is Christianity.

Dr. Venkman said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

TPS_Report said:

---

Is the United State A Christian Nation?

---

No

Quote:

---

And if so...

What is the evidence to support this belief?

---

First Amendment of the Constitution

Quote:

---

What does being a Christian Nation actually mean?

---

The established religion of the nation is Christianity.

Quote:

---

Lastly, why does it matter?

---

It shows our country's feelings toward state religions.

---

I believe you can be a Christian nation without having Christianity established as the national religion.

---

Not if Christian nation means the established religion is Christianity.

---

In my opinion, Christianity can be the "established religion"
without government mandate.