Should the US be a Christian nation?

Philosophy Forums Religion and Spirituality
1

Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham

Some politically conservative Christians say that America is “a Christian nation,” and at this time of year, with the country saturated with Christmas imagery, it can seem that they are right. Are they? Is America a “Christian nation”? Should it be?

newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfa … an_nation/

*********** REPLY SEPARATOR ***********

V writes:

Should the US be a Christian nation?

That is an excellent question.

Probably so, what is the alternative?

Buddhism is OK, but Buddhism offers little in charitable work as the Christians do.

“Real Buddhists” detach themselves from life to escape samara, begging for their food, not handling money, not reproducing. Not very practical for a flourishing US economy. Even if money be damned, we can’t all beg off each other. And someone has to make the electric and process the human waste. Early Buddhists realized this problem and Mahayana and Pure Land Buddhism was invented to get around some of this problem.

See:

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … opic=508.0

In addition, the Christians can defend us in war, where the Buddhists would end up like the monks do in Burma.

Should our country be an atheist run country like China, Russia or Burma?

I think history answers that question.

Atheists like to fantasize what the world would be like if religion would never have been invented.

Sure Christians do bad things, so do all practitioners in other religions. Each religion contains perfection’s as well as imperfections. It is up to the practitioner or end user to use the tools in the right way.

This just proves the point that ‘knowledge without application is useless’ and this applies to every religion known to mankind as well as to the atheists religion of secular humanism.

The problem is not the wisdom that is defective. The problem lies with religious practitioners who are defective in their practice of this wisdom. The wisdom works - we don’t work the wisdom.

Taoists tell us - “fleas come with the dog.” So we must accept that every man made religion has some problems and defects within it.

But many of these religious practitioners also do good things. You never see atheists taking up charitable works and feeding and clothing the poor in any organized way as Christians do.

There may be the odd atheists philanthropists here or there, but nothing organized like Christians charitable organizations. I wrote to the president of American Atheists, UK Atheists, the Secular Humanism Foundation, Sam Harris and others about this very topic…none had the courtesy to reply.

Shows how much interest atheists really have in humanity.

No, I prefer to keep things as they are and allow freedom for ALL religions, even with all their imperfections.

I believe religions do more good than harm. We can see that come to fruition with the many countries that the US has defeated in war. If we were a country that did not apply Christian principles to our captors, millions more would have been killed.

Atheist run countries have a policy of extermination and ethnic cleansing rather than applying charity. Atheist like to claim religion killed so many people…well without religion in world the killings would have been much worse in an all atheist world.

When we sperate the personalities from the principles, it makes looking at things much easier. When I am referring to Christian principles I speak of such things as charity, works of mercy and the golden rule, where the emphasis is on principles and not on the personalities of the church such as the Pope or Jesus.

For even if Jesus was just created as a fable, these foundational Christian principles are universal truths in their own right if one desires to live a life at peace and promote the inner peace of others in this world.

The Christian ethic says to treat one another as we would wish to be treated. As we give ~ so we receive. Is this a bad policy for the US to stand behind? No one says the US has to label itself Catholic, Lutheran or Presbyterian. But the fact still remains that as you instill seeds of peace within others you plant the same seeds and water these seeds within you as well.

As James Allen wrote ~ “To think well of all, to be cheerful with all, to patiently learn to find the good in all - such unselfish thoughts are the very portals of heaven; and to dwell day by day in thoughts of peace toward every creature will bring abounding peace to their possessor.”

As for the mix of spiritual based or atheistic persons in the US or the world? I shudder to think what the world would be like if it was composed solely of atheists.

See:

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … opic=509.0

The facts show clearly that when people are devoid of religion they generally stink as humane humans. But I also like to keep the atheists around to remind us all to come back to earth once in while and look for truth…especially when some of us start to kill in the name of God.

A Hindu sage once told me -

“Just as water floes downhill without effort but requires outside forces and energy to make it move uphill. So the human consciousness falls to its lowest levels of the senses without effort and energies to make our consciousness gravitate to more than our base desires.”

As such, religion and the search for spiritual values are the lesser of two evils with humans, if the other choice is a life devoid of spiritual values.

Now, spiritual values and atheists do not generally mix?

An anonymous atheist once told me:

“What is spirit or spirituality V? Without knowing what you mean by the word, one can’t know what you mean. Why study something for which you not only have no evidence, but not even a definition?”

Yes, spiritual concepts are hard to define, just as the source of the wind is hard to define. Since spiritual matters deal with the unseen and the unknown, how can we define them perfectly?

If we could do that they would not be spiritual studies.

You can’t see why one person is loving and kind and another person is a fiend of perennial shame, hate and destruction. Nor can you see what made the hate monger change into a kind and loving human.

We can describe spiritual concepts and the journey that made the change possible, but it is impossible to put our finger on it all exactly.

Spiritual growth is a journey that is a never ending, an imperfect process in this life. But just as we can see the effects of the wind, while being blind to its source; we can most definitely see the difference in people that incorporate spiritual values within their lives when compared to people that live a life devoid of any spiritual values.

“No man is so wise that he may not easily err if he takes no other counsel than his own. He that is taught only by himself has a fool for a master.” Ben Jonson

No one said we have to ‘investigate it all,’ but we do have to give it some thought if we wish to be at peace.

That is the beauty of being a freethinker. We can think for ourselves. As such, when we get a toolbox we can decide which tools to use for the job. Some tools are used a lot, other tools are left alone for the time being, and still others are trashed when we see they are broken and useless.

Traditional freethinkers (atheists) do not accept me as one of their group, since I draw from spiritual paths as well as wordily areas to garner wisdom to live at peace.

Traditional freethinkers do not like anything that comes from religion.

Kind of a misnomer isn’t it…I’m a freethinker…but I must block out everything that comes from religion and spiritual traditions and whatever other prejudice I wish to inject into the equation?

See:

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … opic=470.0

Psychologist William James once said, “A great many people believe they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices.”

When we limit prejudice we can open our minds to truth and peace. And realize the truth of Blake’s words that “all deities reside within the human breast.”

Yes, if it is religion that an atheists need to adopt, they only have to look as far as the religion of humanity. But just paying secular humanism lip service will not do any good. Our talk of spiritual values must match our actions.

See:

groups.google.com/group/alt.athe … 01c281e7f5

It would be nice if humans acted logically and their actions only worked to make their species flourish and promoted inner peace to all - but they don’t.

Humans need moral guidance or a moral conscience since they have a ‘free will’ of sorts.

Actually it is like this.

We are free to do what we want – but are not free to want what we want.

All our actions have consequences, and many of our actions produce consequences that end up destroying peace. (both ours and other’s peace).

This is what separates us from the animals that run solely on instinct.

Humans run by instinct as well as moral guidance. And religion offers a prepackaged set of morals for humans to adhere to.

Whether this moral conscience in divinely inspired or from Nature I don’t know - that is why I am an agnostic.

But If I had to guess I would lean towards the atheistic view of Nature based conscience, since I have not found any evidence of a God such as the monotheists claim…but as an agnostic I keep looking.

And as I look with an open mind, I am reminded each day that there are powers greater than myself in charge and we are all interdependent and not independent with one another and hope one day we can all come to realize that we all share the same breath.

See:

jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/ … opic=504.0

Take care,

V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2

2

No.

3

ditto on what Murex said

4

Read the post.

5

If America is a theocracy, it may not be a Christian one.

In House Joint Resolution 104, the birthday of Rabbi Menachem Schneerson, March 26, 1991, was designated as "Education Day, USA."
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c102:H.J.RES.104.ENR:

Let’s look at the first clause:

Whereas Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded . . .

Here is the second clause of HJR 104:

[b]Whereas these ethical values and principles have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws[/b] . . .

HuH?

http://www.noahide.org/

http://www.noahide.com/7laws.htm

The Law is Only a Minimum
http://www.noahide.com/minimum.htm

Campaign to abolish X-mas
celebration by gentiles
http://www.public-action.com/x/nh-xmas1/

Is this view fair? Comments appreciated.

http://www.public-action.com/christmas.html

6

No.

7

Ditto

8

First off, I think it is important to establish that, whether we like it or not, the United States is a Christian nation. That is an inevitable part of having an elected government in a country where the majority of its citizens are Christian and there is a vocal minority of politically active Christians who bring the rest into step with their agenda based on their shared Christian ties.

As for when the United States truly became a Christian nation, well, it always has been more-or-less due to the fact that the majority of its population has been Christian since its inception. In the early years of the Republic, this was kept in check by a very limited suffrage, thereby inflating the number of voters sympathetic towards Enlightenment ideas. With every expansion of the suffrage, religion has played an increasingly large role.

Now, the only way I can conceivable see the United States not becoming a Christian nation is if it were to adopt a radical “Freedom of religion is freedom from religion” position, such as seen in France. Given that the United States has always placed more value on the “freedom to” as opposed to “freedom from”, to use Isiah Berlin’s framework, it seems not only unlikely that the United States would impose such an ideology but it also seems rather “unamerican”, as in it goes against historical precedent with respect to American ideological stances.

Of course, what this creates is something of a dilemma for the “wall of separation between Church and State” that Jefferson had in mind when he penned the First Amendment. When he wrote it, he (quite naturally) assumed that his successors would be men more-or-less like himself and he could not foresee the expansion of suffrage and a myriad of other changes (such as the Great Awakenings) that would change the country. Looking at it now, it is clear to see that the wall of separation is anything but an impenetrable wall, but rather a fence with plenty of holes and even a giant gate on it that could be swung open should one so desire. The Founding Fathers were banking on their perfectly like-minded successors not exercising those weaknesses and respecting the wall for what it was.

And while the electorate has often had another thing in mind, the Founding Fathers were wise enough to put one last trump card in place: the Supreme Court. Based on the initial precedent set down, the Supreme Court has routinely ruled in favor of separation of Church and State. The problem is, the Supreme Court has become polarized (something it was designed not to endure) with a 4:4 split between democratic and republican judges (look at their records – they routinely do not vote in favor of precedent and established law but rather what will benefit their parties, with Justice Kennedy as the swing vote.

So, we’ll see how it goes. . . .

9

It won’t be a Christian nation in about 50 years.

10

No. The USA was conceived as a secular constitutional democratic republic. Religious freedom was guaranteed in order to avoid the problems experienced in Europe under state religions. That is as it should be. Religious freedom should be preserved. Religion should not be imposed from without by persons or institutions with coersive power.

11

please separate church and state. I could have sworn thats what the founders of the U.S. had in mind, but how wrong I am.

12

here is an interesting take on whether or not America is in fact a Christian nation. If you have the time to watch the video it is well worth it, esp. the end when Heclo poses the most relevant point within the overarching debate… one that has yet to be posed by anyone else (that I know of) “Why should Christianity care?”

forum.wgbh.org/wgbh/forum.php?lecture_id=1488