Is America a Christian Nation? Should America Be a Christian Nation?

From what you'd quoted of your nonsense that had followed-- namely, that one's belief in "God," meant one was, ipso facto, "Christian"-- beyond the foolishness of your argument to that point, I see that I did not miss out on anything. When someone has presented a fundamentally unsound argument, I don't see the point in proceeding to find additional flaws, before the first, major stumbling block has been addressed-- what would be the point? If you cannot justify even your initial premise-- and your quotes from later on in the OP, did not at all help to fix that primary fallacy of your argument-- why would I waste the time to point out all of your mistakes?

 

The faith led to action, faith without works is dead.
... 2014.

 

I think a lot of what Christianity teaches is good, although I think many of Jesus’ greatest teachings were purposely omitted from the Bible, the ones that negate the need for priests and intermediaries between god and man.
I also think many very strong and good morals can be found in pretty much every religion. So why only Christianity? Why not just say “show love for all other people and all of God’s creations?” Is it just that you grew up with Christianity?

 

But you offer no better argument, for blurring the line between Church & State, than the ignorance of many citizens, who apparently don't understand that foundational division.

 

And yet here you are, still spouting off.

 

"Separation of Church and State" is found nowhere in any of our Nations document. It is found in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a minister of a Church. Even the context there is quite different than what left wing statists apply it to.
Most all European Nations had a National Religion. England had the Anglican Church or Church of England. Italy and Spain, Catholicism. That was what "freedom of religion" was all about.Now "Christianity" contains many different denominations and in this Nation not one of them dominates. If we were to declare this a "Christian Nation" I don't see how that would improve anything. It is a spiritual matter, not one of government. I believe Christ intended it that way. We do benefit, however. that the Nation was founded by sincere Christian precepts, some of them, like marriage, are eroding away.

 

Agree 100%

 

It's as if "many words" makes him right.

 

Have you ever been to D.C.? Biblical texts are all over the place. Ten Commandments are obvious at the Supreme Court. You for one must be "public educated" because you believe as you were taught. I too was public educated but I also have a love for history and have learned to distinguish between all the bulls&*( taught in the indoctrination education system. I doubt you would ever concede your own ignorance, but due to deception, you are. Sorry.

 

I believe the intent of the Constitution is explained by an accommodationist interpretation. Government and religion are meant to complement each other.

https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/accommodationism-and-religion/
"Accommodationism is a constitutional doctrine asserting that the First Amendment promotes a beneficial relationship between religion and government, rather than a strict separation of church and state"​

 

an old poster from about a decade ago that I copied that quote from, do not know the poster's real name, just the alias and their posts are gone, but giving credit where due

 

What would your interpretation look like as far as what actions government takes in that regard?

 

was Jesus ever mentioned in any of the founders documents?

http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

""Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination." "

they very clearly did not want to live in a theocracy and wanted religious freedom for all Religions

 

No one has suggested a theocracy.

 

Why? Because there is a different culture in Japan and Saudi Arabia, is not a reason-- it's not even accurate.

When you say a "Christian nation," it suggests something official, something reflected in our government, as well. If that is what you are struggling to make clear, then your argument's example is a fail. Imperial Japan had a state religion; I do not think modern Japan has one, officially. To be honest, though, the information I'm getting online about this, is all over the map. The first Google answer said that 69% practice Shinto, 66.7% practice Buddhism, 1.5% Christianity, & 6.2% Other. The numbers, obviously add to higher than 100%. So I checked Wikipedia, which said that often the first two religions I'd named, are both included in an individual's practices (though these two do not seem, to me, to be complimentary philosophies/theologies).

<Snip>
Religion in Japan is manifested primarily in Shinto and in Buddhism, the two main faiths, which Japanese people often practice simultaneously. According to estimates, as many as 80% of the populace follow Shinto rituals to some degree, worshiping ancestors and spirits at domestic altars and public shrines. An almost equally high number is reported[6] as Buddhist.
<End>


And yet, just below that, in the same article, they present a pie chart, showing 62% with "no religion," with 31% practicing Buddhism, and only 3% Shinto.




https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Japan

So my takeaway, vis a vis your intended point: none of these appear to be official state religions. The Japanese government does not encourage all citizens to "align with" Buddhist "values & moral teachings"-- or with Shinto values & teachings (which are quite different from Buddhism's)-- as it seemed you were claiming that America needs do, with respect to Xtian values & moral teachings. IOW, your explanation offered, wouldn't hold water.

mswan said: ↑
I'm talking about our country needing a moral revival aligned with Christian values and moral teachings.

Shinto & Buddhism are just parts of Japanese culture, the same way that Protestantism, but also Catholicism, and locally, others, are part of American culture. What you seem to be talking about, instead, is a cultural movement, yet you seem unable to describe what you mean, in any but the vaguest of terms.

(Just in case you didn't realize it, but did actually want to communicate some specific, intelligible idea).

 

What a Christian thing to say.
And simultaneously untrue, or else ignorant of the meaning of the words you use. I am merely trying to understand what you're saying-- and I am not the only one, unclear of your premise. I've offered arguments against things that seem wholely incorrect. That is called "debating," not "spouting off," which usually implies boastfulness and/or arrogance. I am "making points." You, on the other hand, are just spinning your wheels.

Except, of course, when you pause to spit a criticism my way, such as that my comments are of little worth, and that I am "spouting off." Is this an example of how much we could "elevate" ourselves, by being as dedicated to following Christ's teachings, as you seem to be?

 

you sure about that?

"The Palin Principle – Bible trumps Constitution"

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/10/sarah-palin-american-law_n_569922.html

"Go back to what our founders and our founding documents meant — they’re quite clear — that we would create law based on the God of the bible and the ten commandments." - Palin

"Huckabee: Amend Constitution to Reflect God's Standards "

 

No one has clearly suggested anything. That is why we can only guess, at what you are proposing.

 

You're saying that, is as if you only look at a post's size, but do not read the words. It is the meaning of those words, when put together, which I focus upon-- not just their multiplicity. My words are composed so as to make a point. Now, if you want to see just wandering thoughts, you needn't look farther than your own content:

How does where you end up, relate to where you'd started?

Don't be sorry for me; I can write a cogent argument, that sticks to & supports a point. Rather, I am sorry, that you can't do this.


P.S.-- also, very "Christlike" of you, to speak insultingly of me, to others. How does the quote go, from the Sermon on the Mount--

Blessed are those who make fun of, or who ostracize others; they shall know fun?

 

You seem to question my use of the word "obey," I meant to include "their laws and mores." I don't question their right to have a religiously centered national identity. America also has a religiously centered national identity, Christian based. Dr. Samuel Huntington, long time chairman of Harvard's Dept. of Government, agrees.

Samuel P. Huntington, American political scientist
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Samuel-P-Huntington

"The distinctive features of the American Creed, in Huntington’s view, grew out of a culture that included “a work ethic, the English language, British traditions of law, justice, and the limits of government power, and a legacy of European art, literature, philosophy, and music.” Subvert that culture, he believes, and you subvert also the foundations of the Creed and thus eventually of American national identity."

"Ultimately, Huntington insists, the sources of the Creed and of American liberal principles are not secular but religious. They derive from Christianity in general and from a dissenting Protestantism in particular—a product of the English Puritan Revolution, itself described by Huntington as “the single most important formative event of American political history.” It is the distinctively Protestant emphases on the individual conscience, the work ethic, opposition to hierarchy, and the responsibility to transform society that “have shaped American attitudes toward private and public morality, economic activity, government, and public policy.”​

 

The Constitution already reflects

The Constitution already reflect's God's standards. modern leftists interpretations do not. Thank God we now have a Supreme Court to get us back on track.

 

.

 

You're clearly wrong. Try to keep up.

 

It seems that your own understanding of our history, matches that of the average Americans who think that our country was founded to be a Christian nation (60%)-- which group, I think is safe to assume, is largely the same as the two thirds of Americans who could not pass the U.S. citizenship test (in my earlier snip/link). For your enlightenment: keeping of religion out of government, is, in one of our "nation's documents," albeit one which is obscure, in the knowledge of many, almost hidden, you might think:

<Snip>
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.Apr 21, 2023
https://www.archives.gov › bill-of-r...
The Bill of Rights: A Transcription | National Archives
<End>

I know, from your previous post, that you are more used to looking at the length of any text, in order to judge it, rather than from reading it, so it isn't surprising that you hadn't grasped this, but that is the meaning of the very first item, listed in the First Amendment (of our Constitution-- which is considered, generally, as one of our nation's noteworthy documents).

Here, if you want a second opinion, besides mine:

<Google Snip>
The beginning of the First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” This is called the Establishment Clause. Originally, it did two things: it banned a national church and kept the government out of existing state churches.
https://billofrightsinstitute.org › ha...
Handout A: The Establishment Clause: How Separate Are Church and State
<End>


But thanks for trying to teach me something.





EDIT:
I just saw this other reply to me, and thought it fit best, right here:

I did go to public School-- though I do a little bit of reading & independent research, to supplement what I'd learned, as a kid.

And yet it was you, who was unfamiliar with the seapration if Church & State, which begins the First Amendment.

 

LOL-- you can't catch anybody up, even with a link to one of your posts, but you can tell them that they are "clearly wrong." Well, that clearly takes great skill. I'm impressed. You should be very proud (except, of course, that "Pride" is a sin).