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

Maybe you should go back over the thread and show me where I said I wanted to impose my beliefs on someone. Good luck.

 

Maybe you should describe what YOU think a "Christian nation" means.

 

I've done so throughout this thread, including the original post. Read it youeself.

 

You've given individual answers from polls taken.

And, several suggest Christian domination.

How do YOU suggest that be carried out?

 

So this whole thread is pointless then.

 

Yeh, to you I guess.

 

While I don't agree with most of his positions, in all fairness, he has repeatedly. His definition falls under what the rest of us would call "a nations of Christians" which indicates the population, as opposed to "Christian nation" which would indicate a theocracy. Other than that confusing word choice, he has been quite consistent in that he does not call for the government to be passing Christian based laws, or anything along that line.

 

I have no idea what you mean-- *why don't you speak more plainly, as you have just advocated? Of what did I accuse you?

Well let's start with my referring to your words as a "slur" against me, personally, instead of your actually debating any of my ideas. You should have quoted this remark, but didn't. However, I eventually tracked it down, and it was in reply to this post of yours:

yabberefugee said: ↑
I admit you got my ire when you called those that oppose your premise "ignorant citizens". That is how you erase the opposition. Then you go on to use Biblical precepts to beat them over the head like any good attorney would do...
<End>

Therefore, you are saying these charges you make against me, are only your repeating of things, of which I had first charged you (for you to be able, to then turn them around on me). *You would have made your accusation, btw, in a more "honest fashion," by quoting me, doing these things. And no, I am not here beating you over the head, with "Biblical precepts"-- I am using your own words, from the top quote.

I don't think I ever said that you accuse people who oppose your premise, of being ignorant, did I? However, in fact, you did call me ignorant, so I would have only been stating a fact.

yabberefugee said: ↑
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.

And where is my quote, calling people ignorant, because they "oppose (my) premise?" This is untruth, as well. I do, nonetheless, tend to call a spade, a spade, because I do speak straightforwardly. I recall, in possibly my first post in this thread, mentioning the well known ignorance of Americans on many topics. This was not used to "erase" any who were opposing me. Have you never seen the street interviews in which, for example, people are asked to point to major countries on a map or globe-- China, Russia, India, Mexico, Canada, the United States-- and can't find them? Or are asked political questions, as simple as "who is the current vice President?" I know those who are worst, are the ones picked out from among the rest; but I also know that they don't have to spend all day, to find their quotas. And, in fact, you proved my point, by your asserting:

yabberefugee said: ↑
"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.

I still have to LOL, when I read that. Not exactly displaying your "love of history," there. So yes, I tell it like it is. Oh, and you also lifted up the Puritans as being much more "benevolent," than those of the period of "the Enlightenment"-- seemingly unaware that Puritans were the ones who executed witches, in Salem.

yabberefugee said: ↑
Yes, the "Age of Enlightenment" resulted in the humanistic approach where you behead the opposition as in the French Revolution. We see that approach taking place here in America today with "cancel culture" and labeling others as ignorant (as you have done). The Puritan example was far more benevolent than that.


Your comparing the French Revolution to "cancel culture" was a bit humorous of a mispairing, as well. Yet, with these rather glaring holes in your knowledge, you'd still had the hubris to boast to me, while running down my own "ignorance:"

yabberefugee said: ↑
...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.
<End>

To finish a correcting of your erroneous claims (at least in this post), Jesus held the Pharisees in contempt, not because they used "'many words' to confuse the 'ignorant populace'"-- would you like to share the verse in the New Testament which says this? (Were the quotes you'd put around "many words," supposed to suggest that it was a biblical quote?). Do you recall the story of the poor woman, sitting in the back of the temple, who only contributed one small coin to the collection, yet for which, Jesus praised her greatly because-- unlike the Pharisees and Sadducees, who sat in the most prominent place in the temple, and made a great show of their cash contributions, but who were giving from their excess-- she gave from her want, the money she needed to sustain herself? Jesus seemed near to despising the type who were pretensions hypocrites, since their donations came not from their love of God, but out of a desire to further elevate themselves.

So, given the facts that have come out in our conversation-- about the Constitution, and the Puritans, and now the bible-- and considering the claims that have been made, about personal learnedness, beyond the other person's indoctrinated "ignorance"-- which one of us, is presenting ourself in the "honest fashion," you speak of, and which of us is presenting himself as something more than, in truth, he is?

 

I am not even going to pick apart your "many words' until you come clean to the fact, as I have stated, that you imply that many citizens, that would be me and many others, are ignorant to what the Constitution says about what you call "a line between church and state". Now you call it a "line" but before you called it a "wall". This is how progressives attempt to dispose of the opposition by implying they are just "ignorant".. When I turn your words back on you, you call it a "slur". Then you try to beat me over the head with words from Jesus which I believe to be true and hold quite dear. It doesn't work, sorry. I am a believer. You are not. I submit to His words especially when I am wrong. You do not. For you it is all a precept of mankind only to be used when it benefits your narrative.
When you decide to come clean on your accusations of "ignorance", I can point out the many examples how the Pharisees "expounded on "Truth" given to them by Moses, and expanded law through their "many words". It was that legalism and perverting the Truth that angered my Lord.

 

DEFinning said: ↑
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.

Oh I absolutely said, that anyone who thinks our government was not founded on the principle of separation of Church & State, is ignorant of that being in the Constitution--
because there is a clear division made. You had misstated, that the separation of Church & State was not a part of any of our national documents. Then I showed you it was in the very beginning of the Constitution's 1st Amendment:

<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 even gave you a further interpretation, in case you doubted 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>


So why would you be upset with anyone, except perhaps with yourself? Am I supposed to pretend that your claim is not utterly false nonsense?

Anyone who believes, as you had stated, that this "is found nowhere in any of our Nations document," is, by definition, ignorant of what is in our Constitution. I am not name calling, as in saying that anyone is stupid. But when your statement blatantly contradicts what is true, that shows that you are ignorant of the truth. This is only stating a fact. There is nothing devious or underhanded about it, as a way of "eliminating" those who oppose my argument-- I am saying that the beliefs of people who don't know what they're talking about, are not relevant. Why would my saying that, get you "ire" up?

Yet your last post did not merely accuse me of calling a spade, a spade-- it cast me as only using derogatory characterizations to "erase the opposition." You also compare me to a lawyer, and elsewhere say I use my "many words" to confuse people. That is a patently, & misleadingly, false description. I do not trick anyone: I educate with the facts. I am calling people wrong, not for having a different opinion from mine, but for being wrong. Or do you think that this point is still debatable?

yabberefugee said: ↑
I admit you got my ire when you called those that oppose your premise "ignorant citizens". That is how you erase the opposition. Then you go on to use Biblical precepts to beat them over the head like any good attorney would do.


In truth, though I phrased it as "many citizens" being wrong, that was really for your benefit; I don't know how many others, do not actually realize that this is in our 1st Amendment, as you did not.

 

Ok, you are right and many many others are wrong, I concede to the education you dispense. LOL

You do know that public schools, like Congress used to open with a word of prayer until you "educators" started twisting things around.....but of course, they were wrong. Now we learn all about twisted sex! You've come along way!

 

Yes, my quoting of the Constitution is something to laugh at-- that shows how you "have a love for history and have learned to distinguish between all the bulls&*( taught in the indoctrination education system)."

FYI-- that was sarcasm: your still doubting America's separation of Church & State, after I've paraded it before you, in the 1st Amendment, is solid proof that your, so confidently declared truths, have no solid foundation, to them. You are a mocker of facts, that do not comport with your own vision of how things should be. Hence, your opinions, based solely on your made up ideas, are not to be taken seriously.


*As I have already told you, I really don't think that "many, many others," are not familiar with the separation of Church & State; I allowed that many might be, out of consideration for your feelings (something that will never be reciprocated, I see), so as to not make you feel so alone, in your "unknowledgeable" view.

 

Here is a copy of our Bill of Rights-

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

The first amendment does not sever religion from government, but it does prohibit congress from making laws enforcing Shiria, for example, or the Ten Comandments in their entirety, as another example of prohibited basis for congress to base legislation on.

Congress cannot prohibit the Individual right to choose one's religious beliefs, or practices, not even for congressmen. That's part of the meaning of the first amendment.

 

Open your eyes: I just for the second time, snipped the beginning of the first Amendment, where is the Establishment Clause (so I don't need your link). I do not know what distinction you are trying to make, by rephrasing the normal expression, and the words I had used, "separation of Church & State," with your saying that 1A "does not sever religion from government." Does that mean that you do agree, that it keeps Church & State, separated? IOW, please give some concrete examples of the difference between "separating" vs. "severing" the two.


P.S.-- Since I never claimed that Congress could, "prohibit the Individual right to choose one's religious beliefs, or practices, not even for congressmen," it is a mystery as to why you would feel you need to tell me this. Are you not aware they actually have a chaplain, who says a prayer, to start the day in both chambers of Congress? So, obviously, individual displays of one's religious beliefs are not banned. But the principles, beliefs, dogma, of no religion, can be part of our governmental processes.


<Google Snip>
Both the House and Senate chaplains are elected as individuals, "not as representatives of any religious body or denominational entity." When a vacancy occurs, the Senate chooses a new chaplain through a vote on the adoption of a resolution.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org › wiki
Chaplain of the United States Senate - Wikipedia

 

Many Americans are unfamiliar with the concept of “Christian nationalism,” and among those who have heard of it, more people express an unfavorable view of Christian nationalism than say they have a favorable impression of it. Nevertheless, like the descriptions of Christian nation, Americans’ views of Christian nationalism envision varying levels of Christian influence on the nation, ranging from strict theocratic rule to merely embracing moral values such as helping others.

...
From the OP link.

It was pretty obvious from all the document written by the founders, they didn't intend on the nation being aligned with any specific religion.

God is never mentioned in any founding documents.

 

The teaching of Buddahs values seems to work quite well in some areas of the world.

 

That is just your opinion.
Many disagree with your assumption.

America is far more open and accepting of people for who they are where as in the past they'd be ridiculed, beaten, or killed for not being the same as the many.

 

It cites their Creator.

Nothing else. No supreme judge, no natures god.
Who cares if the founders were atheist or deists? Irrelevant. But only how the times were back then.

 

Bullcrap, I can recite most of the DOI from memory.

I can assure you the DOI uses the terms, "Creator", "Nature(in the sense of what was created)", "Nature's God", and "The Supreme Judge of the World".

Don't forget the closing sentence. -

Also the DOI literally says "Appealing to The Supreme Judge of The World for the rectitude of our intentions". That is an appeal to a Higher Power than Man himself.

 

Here, read- https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

And you sure seem to care. You seem to want American government to have been not agnostic but atheistic. That would be the establishment of a religion - Atheism.

 

being neutral is not atheist.....

Adding "under no God we trust" on our money would be atheist.... adding "under no God" to our pledge would be atheist

our founders did not add the word "God" to our money or our pledge, fanatical Christians did that later on - using the excuse that it was to fight the Red scare, it was not about an actual belief in a God

 

Double post, sometimes I stutter.

 

being neutral means you do push either a "God" or "No God"

 

Yes. That's the definition of being agnostic. The theist says there is a God, the atheist says there ain't, and the agnostic says - "Maybe? I just don't know".

 

but the government doesn't even say they don't know, they just do not play the game - they leave that up to the people