AMERICA: A Christian Nation?

[Benuty]

How did this go from religion to capitalism?

America.

Their religion is Capitalism.

Unless of-course you discount those who revere the founders or the celebrities.

[New Jordslag]

Yeah, being very liberal doesn't make you socialist. The wage system is still used there, people still make money through ownership of private businesses.

of course being liberal makes you socialist

If you aren't even going to use correct punctuation, much less form a argument with basis, I see no reason to argue back. The rest of us, meanwhile, will continue debating about whether America is Christian or not.

[Catholic Federalized States]

of course being liberal makes you socialist

If you aren't even going to use correct punctuation, much less form a argument with basis, I see no reason to argue back. The rest of us, meanwhile, will continue debating about whether America is Christian or not.

ok

[Soldati Senza Confini]

of course being liberal makes you socialist

That is like saying being a conservative makes you a fascist.

Cute, but wrong.

[Morr]

Yeah, being very liberal doesn't make you socialist. The wage system is still used there, people still make money through ownership of private businesses.

of course being liberal makes you socialist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[Murkwood]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams.

Sums up my position quite well.

[Nerotysia]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams.

Sums up my position quite well.

Well nice irrelevant quote you have there. Did you expect that to mean anything?

[Murkwood]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams.

Sums up my position quite well.

Well nice irrelevant quote you have there. Did you expect that to mean anything?

We were established as a religious nation. So, no, we aren't a Christian nation, but rather a God-fearing one.

[Nerotysia]

Well nice irrelevant quote you have there. Did you expect that to mean anything?

We were established as a religious nation. So, no, we aren't a Christian nation, but rather a God-fearing one.

Would you like to cite relevant Constitutional passages or court cases to support your claim?

[Murkwood]

We were established as a religious nation. So, no, we aren't a Christian nation, but rather a God-fearing one.

Would you like to cite relevant Constitutional passages or court cases to support your claim?

The "One Nation Under God" case should be enough of proof.

[Nerotysia]

Would you like to cite relevant Constitutional passages or court cases to support your claim?

The "One Nation Under God" case should be enough of proof.

Added in the 1950s and also irrelevant, as people are not forced to say it and are not forced to believe it. It has nothing to do with the actual policy of the United States. So, nice try.

[Furry Alairia and Algeria]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams.

Sums up my position quite well.

Another irrelevent quote.

Can someone throw this in the quotes of irrelevance?

[Lost heros]

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams.

Sums up my position quite well.

The guy also passed the alien and sedition acts.

Would you like to cite relevant Constitutional passages or court cases to support your claim?

The "One Nation Under God" case should be enough of proof.

A phrase added into the flag code in the 1950s as a reaction to Soviet Russia is not a constitutional passage nor a court case.

[Madiganistan]

People who like citing the Treaty of Tripoli in their answers to this question are unable to wrap their minds around cultural context-- the treaty was signed at a time when the modern concept of a nation-state was incipient, and in many cases the rule of law and the rule of [that nation's dominant concept of God] were interchangeable-- the treaty's statement that the U.S. was not "founded on the Christian religion" is in reference to this prevailing tendency throughout Europe, and is mentioned specifically to outline the then-innovative concept of a secular state which could develop and maintain relations with a Mahometan nation without the fundamental theological odds with which the Bey might've found himself at with say, the Papal States.

Religiosity in the late 18th-early 19th century was a very different beast than it is today-- when people ask whether "America is a Christian nation," they seldom mean it in the context of "is America a quasitheocracy a la Saudi Arabia or pre-Revolutionary France?," they're asking whether America is a nation whose cultural narrative is rooted in and has evolved very much in tandem with the Christian faith, a question to which only a paste-eater could answer anything but 'yes.'

[Genivaria]

Would you like to cite relevant Constitutional passages or court cases to support your claim?

The "One Nation Under God" case should be enough of proof.

Which was passed by McCarthyists in the 1950s.
Try again.

[Nerotysia]

People who like citing the Treaty of Tripoli in their answers to this question are unable to wrap their minds around cultural context-- the treaty was signed at a time when the modern concept of a nation-state was incipient, and in many cases the rule of law and the rule of [that nation's dominant concept of God] were interchangeable-- the treaty's statement that the U.S. was not "founded on the Christian religion" is in reference to this prevailing tendency throughout Europe, and is mentioned specifically to outline the then-innovative concept of a secular state which could develop and maintain relations with a Mahometan nation without the fundamental theological odds with which the Bey might've found himself at with say, the Papal States.

Religiosity in the late 18th-early 19th century was a very different beast than it is today-- when people ask whether "America is a Christian nation," they seldom mean it in the context of "is America a quasitheocracy a la Saudi Arabia or pre-Revolutionary France?," they're asking whether America is a nation whose cultural narrative is rooted in and has evolved very much in tandem with the Christian faith, a question to which only a paste-eater could answer anything but 'yes.'

Well sure, but you've watered the term 'Christian Nation' down so much it might as well be meaningless.

[Lost heros]

People who like citing the Treaty of Tripoli in their answers to this question are unable to wrap their minds around cultural context-- the treaty was signed at a time when the modern concept of a nation-state was incipient, and in many cases the rule of law and the rule of [that nation's dominant concept of God] were interchangeable-- the treaty's statement that the U.S. was not "founded on the Christian religion" is in reference to this prevailing tendency throughout Europe, and is mentioned specifically to outline the then-innovative concept of a secular state which could develop and maintain relations with a Mahometan nation without the fundamental theological odds with which the Bey might've found himself at with say, the Papal States.

Religiosity in the late 18th-early 19th century was a very different beast than it is today-- when people ask whether "America is a Christian nation," they seldom mean it in the context of "is America a quasitheocracy a la Saudi Arabia or pre-Revolutionary France?," they're asking whether America is a nation whose cultural narrative is rooted in and has evolved very much in tandem with the Christian faith, a question to which only a paste-eater could answer anything but 'yes.'

Even in the correct denotation of the word "nation", and the question understood to be "Does Modern America have enough strong cultural ties to Christianity be accurately labeled as Christian?", the answer is still no. Simply enough there are too many different variations of Christianity within the US, that conflict religiously and culturally. As a result, the US by and large can't be called "Christian". This doesn't even begin to refer to non-Christians.

[Madiganistan]

People who like citing the Treaty of Tripoli in their answers to this question are unable to wrap their minds around cultural context-- the treaty was signed at a time when the modern concept of a nation-state was incipient, and in many cases the rule of law and the rule of [that nation's dominant concept of God] were interchangeable-- the treaty's statement that the U.S. was not "founded on the Christian religion" is in reference to this prevailing tendency throughout Europe, and is mentioned specifically to outline the then-innovative concept of a secular state which could develop and maintain relations with a Mahometan nation without the fundamental theological odds with which the Bey might've found himself at with say, the Papal States.

Religiosity in the late 18th-early 19th century was a very different beast than it is today-- when people ask whether "America is a Christian nation," they seldom mean it in the context of "is America a quasitheocracy a la Saudi Arabia or pre-Revolutionary France?," they're asking whether America is a nation whose cultural narrative is rooted in and has evolved very much in tandem with the Christian faith, a question to which only a paste-eater could answer anything but 'yes.'

Well sure, but you've watered the term 'Christian Nation' down so much it might as well be meaningless.

I didn't do that, the country did.

[Simply enough there are too many different variations of Christianity within the US, that conflict religiously and culturally. As a result, the US by and large can't be called "Christian".

The same could be and is said of Iraq, yet polls among Americans and Iraqis alike on whether "Iraq is an Islamic nation" would unquestionably yield a majority "yes."

[Benuty]

Would you like to cite relevant Constitutional passages or court cases to support your claim?

The "One Nation Under God" case should be enough of proof.

Made by people during an era in which ruining the careers, and livelihoods of people simply because they were afraid of "niggers sleeping with their women" or that they were "godless commies".

[Lost heros]

Well sure, but you've watered the term 'Christian Nation' down so much it might as well be meaningless.

I didn't do that, the country did.

[Simply enough there are too many different variations of Christianity within the US, that conflict religiously and culturally. As a result, the US by and large can't be called "Christian".

The same could be and is said of Iraq, yet polls among Americans and Iraqis alike on whether "Iraq is an Islamic nation" would unquestionably yield a majority "yes."

I don't really see how a bunch of people calling Iraq Islamic affects the religious-cultural standards of the United States.

[Madiganistan]

I didn't do that, the country did.


The same could be and is said of Iraq, yet polls among Americans and Iraqis alike on whether "Iraq is an Islamic nation" would unquestionably yield a majority "yes."

I don't really see how a bunch of people calling Iraq Islamic affects the religious-cultural standards of the United States.

It doesn't, but it's worth noting that's not what I suggested.
There are many different variations of Islam within the Iraq, that conflict religiously and culturally. Yet that fact wouldn't exclusively prohibit anyone from describing Iraq as a "Muslim nation."

[Lost heros]

I don't really see how a bunch of people calling Iraq Islamic affects the religious-cultural standards of the United States.

It doesn't, but it's worth noting that's not what I suggested.
There are many different variations of Islam within the Iraq, that conflict religiously and culturally. Yet that fact wouldn't exclusively prohibit anyone from describing Iraq as a "Muslim nation."

"Iraq is very diverse islamically" *shows a map of three different Islamic sects*
Sorry, I just found that very humorous.

Anyways, you still fail to address the diversity of Christianity within America, which is the topic.

[Madiganistan]

It doesn't, but it's worth noting that's not what I suggested.
There are many different variations of Islam within the Iraq, that conflict religiously and culturally. Yet that fact wouldn't exclusively prohibit anyone from describing Iraq as a "Muslim nation."

"Iraq is very diverse islamically" *shows a map of three different Islamic sects*
Sorry, I just found that very humorous.

Your attempt at NSG snark-banter is cute, kiddo.
But a) it actually only displays two "Islamic sects," but
b) suggesting that Sunnis and Shias are theologically and culturally cohesive units that never come into intra-denominational conflict, either philosophical or physical, is like saying there is not and never has been division within Catholicism and Protestantism.

Anyways, you still fail to address the diversity of Christianity within America, which is the topic.

The sheer diversity of Christian denominations within the United States and the way their progress and conflict has in served as a foil for secular progress and conflict is ironically makes the use of "Christian" as an umbrella descriptor all the more appropriate.

[The Sapiens]

I remember when Israel and Pan-America (or was it Archeuland?) made this thread. Dear god that turned into a cesspool. But no, it's not. Christian majority, sure, but not Christian. Looks like that majority is gonna be irreligious soon, too.

AFAIK Israel and Pan-America and A&B were the same person. Maybe Christian State is Archeuland reborn!

The US is becoming less and less religious each year though, if the trends keep up eventually it won't be Christian majority.

YAY!

[Lost heros]

"Iraq is very diverse islamically" *shows a map of three different Islamic sects*
Sorry, I just found that very humorous.

Your attempt at NSG snark-banter is cute, kiddo.
But a) it actually only displays two "Islamic sects," but
b) suggesting that Sunnis and Shias are theologically and culturally cohesive units that never come into intra-denominational conflict, either philosophical or physical, is like saying there is not and never has been division within Catholicism and Protestantism.

My intent was not meant to be cute nor snarky. I was just pointing out the comedic value in that you're trying to illustrate mass diversity in a nation with one major difference. Nothing more nothing less.

Also, if you think I was attempting to trivialize the Sunni/Shi'ite split, you're mistaken. I'm well aware of the differences between the two groups and the cultural conflicts that arise from them, that however doesn't make them a) any less Islamic in their regard to each other or an outsider, b) or comparable to the US in any regard.

Anyways, you still fail to address the diversity of Christianity within America, which is the topic.

The sheer diversity of Christian denominations within the United States and the way their progress and conflict has in served as a foil for secular progress and conflict is ironically makes the use of "Christian" as an umbrella descriptor all the more appropriate.[/quote]
In what way has the descriptor "Christian" become more appropriate as it becomes less defined? Especially when an incredibly more precise Christian descriptor more accurately describes some place else.