Is the US a Christian nation?

[Bishop McGuinness]

I'm unfamiliar with that word.


Most individuals and nations in any era are going to be bad at it. Religion isn't supposed to be easy or perfect. It's a clarion call for striving towards certain moral values. I posted sources about why religious liberty and thus pluralism more broadly became an essential aspect of American culture. The secularism of the state in the context of Williams's treatise was intended to allow a more authentic Christian society to emerge. These ideas have had an animating influence since he articulated them, even if that influence has waned at times.


My suspicion is that love is not a word that would spring to mind for most when glimpsing over the history of the Catholic Church either. That, and the transgressions of individuals, do not preclude a nation from possessing a Christian character.


Roger Williams would be inclined to disagree with you - as I suspect would many of America's Founding Fathers. A nation does not require a theocratic government in order to possess a Christian character.


That's an effect of liberalism and its economic model, capitalism, more so than anything else. I did allude to that previously.

The United States of America is not founded upon any religion, and its government has multiple documents outlining this fact - including the Constitution, wherein the First Amendment starts with the following phrase:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

But wait! There's more! The Fourteenth Amendment says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Which means that not only can the Federal government not proclaim a national religion or involve itself too deeply with religion/forge religious laws, but no level of government can do so.

This is also supported by the Supreme Court, which has this ruling:

“The Court has therefore tried to determine a way to deal with church/state questions. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court created a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. This determined that a law was constitutional if it:

1. Had a secular purpose
2. Neither advanced nor inhibited religion
3. Did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

So. Not only is the US a secular, nonreligious nation, but on a scale from the smallest township or village all the way up to the Federal government, it cannot become one. Not only that, but all laws must have a secular purpose, cannot advance religion/religious beliefs (nor inhibit them), and cannot entangle the government with religion/churches in any way.

Case closed.

China has got private property of the means of mass production, huge disparity between capitalists and wage workers, and lacks basic public services like free education for all grades. Plus it has a State. PR China's not communist but in name. PRC is a hybrid corporatist-capitalist economy within an authoritarian regime.


China was directed by the Eight-Nations Alliance after the Boxer Rebellion. The formal rulers were the Qing but de facto they were subservient to the coalition.

No

[The New California Republic]

I'm unfamiliar with that word.


Most individuals and nations in any era are going to be bad at it. Religion isn't supposed to be easy or perfect. It's a clarion call for striving towards certain moral values. I posted sources about why religious liberty and thus pluralism more broadly became an essential aspect of American culture. The secularism of the state in the context of Williams's treatise was intended to allow a more authentic Christian society to emerge. These ideas have had an animating influence since he articulated them, even if that influence has waned at times.


My suspicion is that love is not a word that would spring to mind for most when glimpsing over the history of the Catholic Church either. That, and the transgressions of individuals, do not preclude a nation from possessing a Christian character.


Roger Williams would be inclined to disagree with you - as I suspect would many of America's Founding Fathers. A nation does not require a theocratic government in order to possess a Christian character.


That's an effect of liberalism and its economic model, capitalism, more so than anything else. I did allude to that previously.

The United States of America is not founded upon any religion, and its government has multiple documents outlining this fact - including the Constitution, wherein the First Amendment starts with the following phrase:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...”

But wait! There's more! The Fourteenth Amendment says:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Which means that not only can the Federal government not proclaim a national religion or involve itself too deeply with religion/forge religious laws, but no level of government can do so.

This is also supported by the Supreme Court, which has this ruling:

“The Court has therefore tried to determine a way to deal with church/state questions. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Court created a three-part test for laws dealing with religious establishment. This determined that a law was constitutional if it:

1. Had a secular purpose
2. Neither advanced nor inhibited religion
3. Did not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

So. Not only is the US a secular, nonreligious nation, but on a scale from the smallest township or village all the way up to the Federal government, it cannot become one. Not only that, but all laws must have a secular purpose, cannot advance religion/religious beliefs (nor inhibit them), and cannot entangle the government with religion/churches in any way.

Case closed.

China has got private property of the means of mass production, huge disparity between capitalists and wage workers, and lacks basic public services like free education for all grades. Plus it has a State. PR China's not communist but in name. PRC is a hybrid corporatist-capitalist economy within an authoritarian regime.


China was directed by the Eight-Nations Alliance after the Boxer Rebellion. The formal rulers were the Qing but de facto they were subservient to the coalition.

No

Yes.

[Fahran]

AmeriChristian I adapted from the earlier discussion of AmeriJesus. Basically it is the discipleship to a version of Jesus that espouses American values rather than being quite opposed to them.

Also if the idea was for a more authentic Christian society to emerge, that would require a system that does not push religion to the periphery. At least as far as I understand it, America does the latter. Not persecuting people of other faiths is quite Christian btw, to love others was Christ's greatest commandment after all.

All I'm getting from this is that we need a Third Great Awakening.

Many would likely also contend that the Cathokic Church was not (or is not) Christian. The litmus test for whether something is Christian, as given in the Bible, seems to be whether it bears good fruit. Can you honestly say that America has borne good Christian fruit?

It depends on the context, but I'm quite fond of Catholic philosophers and theologians. I certainly perceive them more highly than many of their Protestant counterparts, who, in recent years, appear prone to sola scriptura and prosperity gospel.

God would seem to disagree with them though. God is to be the ruler of all nations, with maybe some men acting as a steward in his stead. This was the system applied to Israel.

Christianity does allow for a secular government and, in fact, developed under circumstances that contributed to a separation between clerical and secular authority - far more so than Judaism or Islam. "Give unto Caesar" and all that.

Again, that is a large portion of America's character. Instead that does show how utterly diverged from Christianity America is culturally.

The more liberal aspects, yes, namely classically and progressively liberal.

[Hakons]

It depends on what one means by nation. A lot of posters here seem to think the U.S. government is the nation, and thus point to its secularism (though this secularism isn't as concrete as some would like to think). I can confidently say the U.S. is a Christian country, since country refers to the group of people, their land, and their society. Christianity has, without question, been the greatest influence on the United States. However, I can also confidently say the US is less and less a Christian country, as demonstrated by growing apostasy.

[Distruzio]

Hmm....

I'm not suggesting that religion is a cause of economic power. I'm suggesting that religion is a fundamental cultural bedrock that allows a society to exploit economic machinations (whatever they may be) to the greatest possible degree that benefits the greatest number of people.

There are some religions that are better suited to this effect - Protestantism vs Islam, for example. Conversely, there are other religions that run counter to proper exploitation of economic power - Hinduism vs Christianity, for example. And even then... some cultures do not allow for the proper degree of individualism no matter the effect of religion - Mexico vs the United States.

In Christianity, property ownership is fundamental. Protestantism, in particular, seems to nurture a competitive streak that tends to maximize the potential for prosperity, relative to Catholicism or even Orthodoxy (especially Orthodoxy). Protestant nations tend to allow a focus on individualism to such an extreme degree that the greater nation, provided the social culture allows for it (or in the case of America, encourages it), becomes hyper-individualized. Almost commercialized. Without the faith to hold the people together, they lose themselves in a miasma of self-indulgence.

My overall point is that religion is necessary to prevent this to the greatest possible extent.

Do you even Bible?

Indeed. I do. Do not mistake me for some bibliolator, though.

Regardless an action isn't Christian just because a lot of Christians do it. Same goes for behaviors, goals and ideas.

Oh, I apologize. I wasn't aware that I needed to embolden and enlarge the qualifiers I stated above - I clearly did not speak in absolutist terms.

The greed for material property clearly isn't Christian (see Bears post) and the misuse of Biblical text does not make the actions any more Christian.

This sentence is pretty convoluted. At the very least, the justification for it is so alien to my way of thinking that I cannot parse your exact meaning here.

[Dark Socialism]

It never has been a Christian nation but Evangelicalism should be made the official religion

[Vassenor]

It never has been a Christian nation but Evangelicalism should be made the official religion

First Amendment says no.

[Dark Socialism]

It never has been a Christian nation but Evangelicalism should be made the official religion

First Amendment says no.

Culture says yes

[Vassenor]

First Amendment says no.

Culture says yes

Culture cannot overrule the Constitution.

[Distruzio]

I'm not suggesting that religion is a cause of economic power. I'm suggesting that religion is a fundamental cultural bedrock that allows a society to exploit economic machinations (whatever they may be) to the greatest possible degree that benefits the greatest number of people.

Evidence please.

Again... the West exists, and surpasses (in every single metric possible except, perhaps, birthrates) all other cultures.

And I doubt that capitalism has the "benefit of the greatest number of people" in mind(!)

I suggested nothing of the sort.

There are some religions that are better suited to this effect - Protestantism vs Islam, for example.

How?

Protestantism outright demands competition among the faithful - who can live in the most scripturally sound manner possible? Protestantism is so devoted to this perspective that tens of thousands of denominations proliferate. Protestantism also does not tend to encourage, generally speaking, holy wars of domination between sects.

Islam, on the other hand...

Conversely, there are other religions that run counter to proper exploitation of economic power - Hinduism vs Christianity, for example.

How does Hinduism run counter to the "proper exploitation" of economic power?

The caste system springs to mind, karma, reincarnation, etc.

Such beliefs contribute mightily to a notion of contentment with ones lot in the hopes of a better life next time. Such a perspective doesn't speak of entrepreneurialism to me.

In Christianity, property ownership is fundamental.

Is it indeed:

"One thing you lack: go and sell all you possess, and give to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me." But at these words his face fell, and he went away grieved, for he was one who owned much property. And Jesus, looking around, said to His disciples, "How hard it will be for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!" And the disciples were amazed at His words. But Jesus answered again and said to them, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Mark 10:7-25

"Beware, and be on your guard against every form of greed; for not {even} when one has an abundance does his life consist of his possessions." Luke 12:15

“No servant can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.” The Pharisees, who loved money, heard all this and were sneering at Jesus. He said to them, “You are the ones who justify yourselves in the eyes of men, but God knows your hearts. What is highly valued among men is detestable in God's sight.” Luke 16:13-15

He who loves money will not be satisfied with money, nor he who loves abundance with its income. This too is vanity. When good things increase, those who consume them increase. So what is the advantage to their owners except to look on? The sleep of the working man is pleasant, whether he eats little or much. But the full stomach of the rich man does not allow him to sleep. There is a grievous evil which I have seen under the sun: riches being hoarded by their owner to his hurt. When those riches were lost through a bad investment and he had fathered a son, then there was nothing to support him. As he had come naked from his mother's womb, so will he return as he came. He will take nothing from the fruit of his labor that he can carry in his hand. And this also is a grievous evil-- exactly as a man is born, thus will he die. So, what is the advantage to him who toils for the wind? Eccl 5:10-16

Exactly. I realize that you think this supports your conclusion, but I disagree. Each verse encourages the wealthy man to acknowledge the responsibility his wealth burdens him with. You, likely, think this is an admonishment against the accumulation of wealth. Far from it. It is an emphasis on personal, individual, responsibility given certain circumstances. A wealthy man who does NOT acknowledge his responsibility, will find it difficult to enter Heaven.

In no way do any of these verses counter property rights.

Protestantism, in particular, seems to nurture a competitive streak that tends to maximize the potential for prosperity, relative to Catholicism or even Orthodoxy (especially Orthodoxy). Protestant nations tend to allow a focus on individualism to such an extreme degree that the greater nation, provided the social culture allows for it (or in the case of America, encourages it), becomes hyper-individualized. Almost commercialized. Without the faith to hold the people together, they lose themselves in a miasma of self-indulgence.

My overall point is that religion is necessary to prevent this to the greatest possible extent.

Religion is not a magic wand that wards off greed and selfishness, unless you can provide evidence of it.

I agree. Completely. But it certainly does a decent enough job that peoples lives can be made better.

[Distruzio]

NCR, you missed Acts 2:44-45:

And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
45 And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need.

Hardly a clarion call for capitalism. In fact, it sounds more like... communism.

Hardly. Note the phrase missing: government.

Acts is a book of the early Church. Meaning that the verses contained within referred to the actions, voluntarily embraced, by the faithful.

The Book is called Acts. Not Legislated Acts.

Capitalism relies on government only for the enforcement of property rights. What the individual does with that property is their business (provided the use does not infringe upon the rights of other individuals).

[Distruzio]

Culture says yes

Culture cannot overrule the Constitution.

Tell that to the Left.

[Vassenor]

Culture cannot overrule the Constitution.

Tell that to the Left.

Oh?

[Distruzio]

Tell that to the Left.

Oh?

"Bake the cake, bigot"
"You don't need guns, bigot"
"I believe in free speech, just not hate speech.... bigot"

Shall I continue?

[The United Republic of Westend]

No, As it should be and I say this as a Christian.

[Vassenor]

Oh?

"Bake the cake, bigot"
"You don't need guns, bigot"
"I believe in free speech, just not hate speech.... bigot"

Shall I continue?

I think that must be line for someone.

[Frievolk]

Oh?

"Bake the cake, bigot"
"You don't need guns, bigot"
"I believe in free speech, just not hate speech.... bigot"

Shall I continue?

I can't believe you literally typed that unironically.

[Novi Vrakanda]

I mean, the majority does have some influence in the decision making process. We like to think the government is secular, but people like Mike Pence and Jeff Sessions are far from secularity.

True enough... but having an influence is not directing the direction of the nation, you know?

I mean... technically, we could use that same logic that the US is also a matriarchy since there are more female Americans than there are male Americans.

Is America a matriarchy?

Of course not.

There aren't more females in government than males.

[Fahran]

Culture cannot overrule the Constitution.

It can and has. It's also been instrumental to how we interpret and amend it.

[Estanglia]

First Amendment says no.

Culture says yes

Constitution>culture.

[Vassenor]

Culture cannot overrule the Constitution.

It can and has. It's also been instrumental to how we interpret and amend it.

So how do you interpret a line banning requiring religious qualification for office, or a line banning laws derived from religion in this context?

[Distruzio]

"Bake the cake, bigot"
"You don't need guns, bigot"
"I believe in free speech, just not hate speech.... bigot"

Shall I continue?

I can't believe you literally typed that unironically.

In what way are any of those statements, hyperbolic or otherwise, NOT indicative of a culture at odds with the constitution?

[Distruzio]

True enough... but having an influence is not directing the direction of the nation, you know?

I mean... technically, we could use that same logic that the US is also a matriarchy since there are more female Americans than there are male Americans.

Is America a matriarchy?

Of course not.

There aren't more females in government than males.

Thank you for agreeing.

[Kyrinasaj]

Depends on how you interpret the American nation

[Novi Vrakanda]

There aren't more females in government than males.

Thank you for agreeing.

Oh, I see what you did there.