0
   

Should the US be a Christian nation?

Forums: Spirituality And Religion
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
vfr
 
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 11:07 am
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?

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/2006/12/is_america_a_christian_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:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=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.

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.

I shudder to think what the world would be like if it was composed solely of atheists. 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.

But as for the mix of spiritual based or atheistic persons in the US or the world? The facts show clearly that when people are devoid of religion they generally stink as humane humans.

See:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=509.0

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.

But 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:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=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:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/browse_frm/thread/769d72756b5cc0f0/bffdf501c281e7f5?hl=en&lnk=st&q=+secular+humanism+why+it+fails&rnum=2#bffdf501c281e7f5


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:

http://jesusneverexisted.org/jne/forum/index.php?topic=504.0




Take care,


V (Male)

Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
AA#2
[email protected]
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 8,925 • Replies: 171
No top replies

 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 12:53 pm
Re: Should the US be a Christian nation?
vfr wrote:
...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?...


I started a thread several months ago that was similar in context to the questions above. I wondered aloud why atheists & agnostics would partake of gifts during a season (Christmas) that they so adamantly speak out against. I primarily spoke of Christmas bonuses from employers, but also considered their acceptance and giving of any Christmas gift(s).

The outrage was loud - and laughable given the hypocrisy when it comes to accepting money and gifts that are centered around the celebrated date of the birth of Jesus. There were many; "yeah but" statements made, all though were weak attempts to justify action.

For many/most atheists and agnostics - the bottom line to that particular topic and also to the questions above boil down to what is more important - monerary gain or actual power of belief. In that regard - actions speak louder than words.

I would like to propose a modification to your title-question:

"Should the US be a Christian nation, every day of every year, regardless of monetary gain"?
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 01:16 pm
Is the United States a Christian nation? Depends on the point of view. The values and core beliefs that have been fundamental to the United States are a central part of our European heritage. Colonization of North America came at a time when tiny differences in Christian doctrine resulted in mass slaughter. Refugees from the Reformation/Counter-reformation came to the New World to escape persecution, and to impose their own beliefs over all and sundry. There was no tolerance for the Indian's religion, nor even for any Abrahamic doctrine that conflicted with the chauvinistic beliefs of the various colonial communities. among other things, time and distance prevented the colonists from killing one another over religious differences.

The newly independent nation was headed for disaster when the Constitution was adopted and "imposed" an effective centralized government capable of conducting domestic and foreign policies. Part of the cost of obtaining the consent of the People to the new Constitution was an iron-clad guarantee that the Federal Government would keep its cotton-picking hands off religion. The separation of Church and States in the 18th and 19th centuries was focused on prevention of any one "Christian" sect taking control of the Federal Government. There were no Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus, Confucians, Zoroastrians, or Scientologists. Catholics were a minority outside of a few large cities even in the mid-19th century. I doubt if there was .001 Muslims, and not many more Jews represented in the overall population. To perform a half-forgotten ritual from a tribal religion out of Africa. or some other place was witchcraft, and so some religious movements went "underground" camouflaged as "Christian".

Our nation that fought and died for liberty, had little compunction over the enslavement of non-Caucasians. They were, after all regarded as inferior races by the predominantly "white" population. The same sort of attitude can be seen in the attitudes regarding religion. My dear old grandmother, who regarded herself as pretty liberal, told me that I could be any religion I liked, so long as it was Christian. That was almost 45 years ago, and frankly that same attitude could probably be found with no difficulty today almost anywhere in the country. Its chauvinism, pure and simple.

So officially and legally the United States in NOT a Christian Nation, but virtually the whole of the population remains a product of Christianity and its chauvinistic beliefs are little changed from 100 years ago. There are far more people today who opt for atheism, agnosticism, or one of an almost countless number of religions. Immigrants today openly practice the religions of their parent cultures, and no one thinks much of it so long as the foreign religion accepts our society's overall values. Americans won't easily tolerate slavery, or multiple wives, or the sacrifice of small animals. Religion in general is under pressure by the rationalistic, and pragmatic values of science and technology. Conflicts between creation stories, abortion, stem cell research/genetic experimentation, etc. almost define the gulf between religious believers and those who hold that there is no place for superstition in the modern world. The most faithful are astounded, shocked and disgusted by attitudes and values depicted in the media, and others see progress as previous taboos and hypocrisies are aired for public entertainment.

Not only in the United States, but around the world reactions to the loosening of religious boundaries has social significance. In the US, reactionary and charismatic Christianity appeals to many. An unquestioning belief and faith in the utter infallibility of the Bible appeals to large numbers of those folks. They aren't much different than the fanatics who pledge eternal Jihad against the West in Southwestern Asia. Both would love to see the destruction of what they believe is an immoral and godless society, they just happen to have been born on different sides of the chauvinistic/cultural fence.

Still, there appears to be increasing tolerance for doctrines other than the Abrahamic family or religions. In the West there are more followers of non-Abrahamic religions today than at anytime in the past 1,500 years or so. I believe, I hope that what we are seeing today is the birth of a new major Western religious movement that embraces the humanistic values of our Abrahamic past with the values of the Enlightenment and less dogmatic strictures of Eastern religion. I think that would be a "good thing" and that the suffering natural to the human condition will be mitigated as time goes on. Of course, there may well be unintended consequences, but that would be the plot for a science fiction novelist.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 01:30 pm
Fer chrissake, learn how to imbed urls so as not to stretch the page and make it unreadable.

No, the United States is and always has been a secular nation, and there's no good reason to change that, with plenty of good reasons not to change that.
0 Replies
 
Coolwhip
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 Oct, 2007 02:57 pm
I don't really have much stake in all of this, seing as I reside in Europe, but I still read ashermans post with great interest. *nods*
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2007 05:23 am
The united states was founded by a bunch of Christians...




























































It was also founded by white males, does that mean that it was only designed for white males? Does it mean that it should always be about the success and prosperity of one group over another?

We are much better than that. Same goes for religion.

The question: "Should the USA be a christian country."
The answer: No. There is no bennifit.

T
K
O

P.s. - Asherman - The question is not "is" but "should" america be a christian country? The question of whether or not we are is unessisary to address.
0 Replies
 
Asherman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2007 09:40 am
Quite right TKO. I appear to have misread the sense of the question, but then I have some issues with the whole notion of "should" used in the idealistic sense. It's tough enough to semi-understand and deal with what "is". The use of "should" frequently isn't so much a question as a declaration of idealistic determination. Christians believe that the world should be Christian, Muslims believe it should be Islamic, and etc.
0 Replies
 
EmilyGreen
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2007 10:26 am
When you say "Christian Nation" that makes me think that the nation is ruled by the bible, with Christian laws. Either way, though - this country will never be that way, and I'm not sure it ever really was.

Keep in mind, also, that there are denominations of Christianity, and similar denomination type differences in Buddhism, Hinduism, Paganism, etc. Not all Agnostics are alike, not all Athiests are alike, etc.

This country is a heterogenious blend of all kinds of people with all kinds of beliefs. Not much of it is organized, but what we hear on the news is from the few organized groups - so it makes us feel as if there are only a FEW large groups of religious people. It would be really hard for someone to go on the news (or give talks, whatever) and represent all of the people who aren't in an organized religious group - so they just don't get represented.

So with so many various beliefs, this country could never be a Christian Nation. Even if it could, I don't think it should.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Sun 7 Oct, 2007 11:07 am
Asherman - I loved your lengthy post.

TKO - good point.

On Friday, I listened to an interview with an author who wrote a book on religion in the Unites States. I did a long search and still can't be sure who he was (maybe Michael Lerner discussing his newish book, "Left Hand of God, The: Healing America's Political and Spiritual Crisis"). Anyway, he made one interesting point that stuck with me (he made many other that DIDN'T stick with me).

He said that the United States were founded by men who were deists who were not particularly religious. He quoted from their own writing in support of this stance. He also said that the found of the US came at a point in history allowing it to be founded with a strong separation between church and state. Never before this point had a nation been founded without a religious mandate. And that at any later point in our history, it would have been founded under one religion or another. He goes on to explain how our separation of C & S has allowed our citizens to be more religious because religion isn't regulated in any way.
0 Replies
 
EmilyGreen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 07:16 am
littlek - that's an interesting point, although I think Iceland was founded by people who didn't want to be forced to be Christian... so doesn't that lack religious mandate? They had religious reasons, though, I guess, so maybe it doesn't lack religious mandate.

I always question when people use the words always and never.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 07:51 am
Lilk- I think I heard part of that interview, too. It was on NPR.

This references it.

And this is on the NPR "Fresh Air" site.
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 09:28 am
Emily, I don't know much about Iceland. But I did a quick search online. While there has been an Icelandic population for thousands of years, there has not been a lot of actual government. There was one kind who wanted to christianize the population. They didn't gain their independence from Norway until the mid 1900. Before that, the developed a constitution in the late 1800s - after we developed ours.

SQ - that's it!!! And I looked so long for any clue. What day did you hear it?
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 09:56 am
To amend my previous post: the book is called "Head and Heart: American Christianities" and is written by Gary Wills. Here's a book review from Amazon.......

Quote:

A landmark examination of Christianity's place in American life across the broad sweep of this country's history, from the Puritans to the presidential administration of George W. Bush.

The struggle within American Christianity, Garry Wills argues, now and throughout our country's history, is between the head and the heart: between reason and emotion, Enlightenment and Evangelism. Why has this been so? How has the tension between the two poles played out, and with what consequences, over the past 400 years? How "Christian" is America, after all? Garry Wills brings a lifetime's worth of thought about these questions to bear on a magnificent historical reckoning that offers much needed perspective on some of the most contentious issues of our time.

A religious revolution occurred in America in the 18th century, one that saw the emergence of an Enlightenment religious culture whose hallmarks were tolerance for other faiths and a belief that religion was a matter best divorced from political institutions-the proverbial "separation of church and state." Wills shows us just how incredibly radical a departure this separation was: there was simply no precedent for it. To put this leap in perspective, Wills provides a grounding in the pre-Enlightenment religion that preceded it, beginning with the early Puritans. He then provides a thrillingly clear unpacking of the steps, particularly Madison's and Jefferson's, by which church-state separation was enshrined in the Constitution, and reveals the great irony of the efforts of today's Religious Right to blur the lines between the two. In fact, it is precisely that separation that has allowed religion in America to flourish since the disestablishment of religion created a free market, as it were, and competition for souls led to the profusion of denominations across the length and breadth of the land.

As Wills examines the key movements and personalities that have transformed America's religious landscape, we see again and again the same pattern emerge: a cooling of popular religious fervor followed by a grassroots explosion in evangelical activity, generally at a time of great social transformation and anxiety. But such forces inevitably go too far, provoking a backlash as is happening right now with the forces of Creationism and the anti-abortion fundamentalists.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 10:13 am
Current US presidential candidates Obama and Clinton are both appealing to Dems using faith based themes and language.

Are any Dems who consistently trashed GWB for 'mixing church and state' concerned that Dems are doing the same thing?

Should Clinton and Obama cite the New Testament as supporting their policies?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 10:22 am
real life wrote:
Current US presidential candidates Obama and Clinton are both appealing to Dems using faith based themes and language.

Are any Dems who consistently trashed GWB for 'mixing church and state' concerned that Dems are doing the same thing?

Should Clinton and Obama cite the New Testament as supporting their policies?


Either answer the question in this thread or STFU. Your post has no relavance to "should the US be a Christian country?"

There is a significant difference between religious expression from a candidate and political legislation initiated by the executive branch.

Should these candidates be reciting the new testiment supporting their policies? No. Most of the policies the candidates propose are strong enough on their own.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 11:04 am
Define christian.
0 Replies
 
EmilyGreen
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 11:43 am
littlek wrote:
While there has been an Icelandic population for thousands of years...


Not true, actually. But I see what your aim was with the original post now, so its not exactly relevant. Smile
0 Replies
 
JPB
 
  1  
Reply Mon 8 Oct, 2007 11:59 am
neologist wrote:
Define christian.


really.

Another new book out on the topic is Forrest Church's,

I've just started to read it, but it certainly seems to be on-topic here.
0 Replies
 
hankarin
 
  1  
Reply Tue 9 Oct, 2007 04:59 pm
Asherman wrote:
virtually the whole of the population remains a product of Christianity and its chauvinistic beliefs are little changed from 100 years ago.


Chauvinism is extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group.

Catholicism, Protestantism, and even individuals who claim to be "Christian" can fit the above definition. But none of these have anything in common with first century Christianity. The secular/political nations cannot be, by definition, Christian, no matter what they claim to be or want to be called.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 10 Oct, 2007 08:36 am
by your definition, i'd like to know of any christian denomination that isn't chauvinistic. it doesn't exist.

for that matter, the biggest chauvinist in the history of christianity was paul. when he got bored of being a jewish chauvinist against christians, he became a christian chauvinist against jews. it's all in his chauvinistic letters, which he wrote to anyone and everyone that wasn't a christian.

Quote:
extreme and unreasoning partisanship on behalf of a group to which one belongs, especially when the partisanship includes malice and hatred towards a rival group.


your defintion. and somehow i feel that paul did more for MALE chauvinism than any other single individual in history. others took part in it, but he made it "godly" - the son of a bitch. if you take him out of the bible, it's not half as "chauvinistic" a document as it is with him in it, until you translate it to english. hey, even the holy ghost used to be female!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
Family files lawsuit against school over Jesus - Discussion by Baldimo
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Should the US be a Christian nation?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/27/2024 at 10:25:52
▲ ▼