Should the US be a Christian nation?

Look for the one keeping to the standard of John 13:35.

Chauvinism is a human trait bred into us as deeply as territoriality, self-interest, and a tendency for 'forceful argument". Our ancestors were tribal whose survival was constantly challenged by the environment (including animal life), and competing human tribes. The word used by virtually every human grouping to describe itself can be translated to "People", and everyone else is something less. Social structures and values that succeeded in preserving survival have become enshrined in the forms we humans follow even today.

Times have changed since a trip to the supermarket meant sending out a party of tough, skilled men to track down a buffalo. Women discovered or invented agriculture, and small wandering bands have grown into large populations. Less successful groups have been incorporated into larger groups. The skills and roles required to keep maintain society have evolved along with the technology humans are able to command. Changing conditions put a strain on older organizational forms, but only rarely are startling new social forms appear. We tend to modify old forms to fit new problems, and old values only slowly evolve into new taboos.

The human world changed very little (relatively) between the development of settled agriculture and cities, and the Industrial Revolution. Distances were so great that it wasn't difficult for small, isolated groups to continued to exist. Even large human populations like India, China, and the urban civilizations of the New World maintained values and social structures that might have been recognizable to ancestors dead for over two thousand years. Muscle power prevailed, and the ability to communicate with human slaves kept them "essential" to societies all over the world. "We are the People, and those who aren't People make pretty good slaves." Dominance may not be PC, but old habits die very, very hard.

Even so, humans are capable of learning and adapting to changing circumstances far better than most species that have ever lived on our little wet world. Learning/Education opens the door to change, and broaden our horizons. We humans are just as much "wondering" as "warring" animals. When you pursue a question honestly sometimes it leads you into conflict with the accepted Truths of the past. That can be very stressful, and not everyone can throw away values, structures and beliefs that were a mainstay of their ancestors further back than they can count.

Modern technology changes blindingly fast, and the verities of today may be quaint folk-belief tomorrow. Only 100 years ago few people even in the most advance countries ever traveled more than 100 miles from home. Today almost anyone can travel to the most remote spot on the globe, and thousands do that every day without a thought. Two hundred years ago it took weeks for a message to travel a few hundred miles, and today countless communications are exchanged with folks in isolated corners of the world. All the doors and windows between societies and cultures are wide open; time and distance have shrunk to the point where headhunters and French urbanites are next door neighbors. A man may have been riding an ox one day, and the next day be applying for a license to drive a taxicab in New York. If there wasn't conflict, and stress on social structures we'd be amazed.

We can legislate equality, justice, and a whole range of other behaviors, but the human heart is beyond our grasp. Rationality has little to do with the internal values and expectations of individuals. Attempts to make radical change to core beliefs is just as likely to provoke attack as change. Actually, I believe that the United States is the most promising forum for social adaptation. We don't have a State religion, and the humanistic values of modern Christianity is pretty accepting of a wide range of alternate doctrine and dogma. Technology and infrastructure in the U.S. are pervasive, and bump up against almost everyone's cultural values and expectations. We tend to be individualistic and competitive with a strong appreciation for innovation and creativity. Those are traits that tend to make for change and tolerance for other ways of seeing the world.

Another of our human dispositions is the tendency to see the negatives, and to regard the future in dark and gloomy terms. Environmental collapse, universal calamity, impending oppression, and a new generation who could scarcely avoid angering the deity into destroying the world. So it has always been for so long as we can trace our history. Yet, the world still spins on its axis. The corn still grows. Children are born, and old folks die when the suffering becomes too great. For every negative outcome of new technologies, there are more positive outcomes ... otherwise, no one would bother inventing and refining stuff.

In the end, whether things are "improving" or "degenerating" is largely a matter of the attitudes each of us carry around with us. Changing the outside world is relatively easy, changing ourselves is much more difficult. Who among us is so near perfection (whatever that might be) that we can spare the time, effort and resources to "correct" that sad sack neighbor whose idea of happiness is so obviously wrong, wrong, wrong?

depends on the context. if he/you mean christians that love christians, there are enough of those.

if he/you mean christians that love christians and non-christians, then there simply aren't enough of those in any christian denomination.

humans loving each other isn't an exclusively christian ideal, and that's part of the problem. no christian sect i can think of has enough love for humanity as a whole, so john is either too exlusive or too optimistic, as far as his claims regatrding what a true christian should be. if he means love for all people, then i agree, it's a good goal- just not a "christian" one, nor one i rely on from most christians from any denomination.

thank you, xingu. that is the most comprehensive and easy to read refution of all this bloody nonsense i've ever seen.

the fact that it's an op-ed doesn't bode too well with me, (these days,) i'd have to check every last detail to be confident of it. but it reads beautifully, and it's nice to see.

Glad to help.

hi xingu,

Any boos for Dems like Hillary and Obama who quote the NT, and call for policies they say Jesus would REALLY approve of?

How come all this 'separation of church and state' is one-sided?

What's the other side Real?

from http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=the_hillary-obama_faith_strategy_for_2008&ns=DrPaulKengor&dt=10/10/2007&page=2

Are you saying Obama and Hillary have no right to use religion in the same manner the conservatives do?

This is only tangentially correct. The Norge (we would say Norwegians) who colonized Iceland were getting out of Dodge because they did not want to be under the thumb of a King, Harald Fairhair, who was said to have united the Norge in 872 CE--although not so thoroughly that many of the chieftans were not willing to defy him, and sail away if necessary to keep their independence. Very little is known of him, and the two near contemporary sources, two skaldic poems, don't deal with the subject of religion. He had a Danish wife (apparently--maybe), and upon that basis, accounts of him from the 12th centuries, more than 250 years after he was supposed to have lived, claim that he "christianized" Norway. That is suspect because the sources were Christians, and Christians, especially in pre-modern times, are notorious liars about such matters. Also, if Norway had been unified and "christianized" by Fairhair, one has to ask why purely historical sources (those not necessarily produced by the church, and sources from other regions--it is noteworthy that there are no sources outside Norway for Harald Fairhair) claim that Norway was converted to Christianity by Hakon and St. Olav, over a century after the battle at which Harald Fairhair was alleged to have unified Norway.

What is more likely is that chieftans, barons if you will, didn't care for the drift toward unification and centralization under ambitious men, and went "aviking" with a view to finding someplace else to live.

One of the most interesting sagas of this period is Laxdaela Saga, which begins with the account of Uhn the Deepminded, a woman who leads her "tribe" to Iceland after he father is killed in Scotland while fleeing Iceland to avoid the impositions of a King, perhaps Harald Fairhair. It was not written, probably, until the 13th century--however, it is interesting in that it makes no mention of Christians and Christianity, other than oblique references to priests, who are assumed to be Christian, simply because the Norge had no priests in their pre-Christian times. It is also interesting in that it is thought to have been written by a woman.

As Iceland was settled from the early 9th century onward (some few historians think there might have been settlements in the 8th century, but most think that those were seasonal fishing and whaling camps), and Norway has been traditionally and historically considered to have been
"christianized" at the end of the 10th and beginning of the 11th century, it is unlikely that anyone colonized the island to escape the Christians. People may well have gone there to settle later on for that reason, though.

If you think conservatives are wrong to do so, what of liberals who do the same?

If I consistently allow them to do so, are you going to be consistent and disallow it?

Liberals are strangely silent when liberal icons are caught doing what they have trashed conservatives for.

There's a word for that.

Yeah, it's called hypocrisy, which is what homosexual Republicans are up to when they pander to conservative Christians for votes, and then run off to boy prostitutes.

I don't believe I ever said anything about politicians in either party not being allowed to use religion or pandering to the religious for votes. What I'm saying is this country was not founded on the Christian religion and is not, in that sense, a Christian nation. The Bible is not and should never be the foundation of our laws. The wall that seperates our government from religion should never be torn down. And an atheist, Muslim or Hindu has as much right to run for President as a Christian. I doubt they would get elected thou.

Hipocrisy is something that is found in all politicians, Republicans and Democrats. It just seems to be more prevelant in the Republicans as they were the ones who were running on family values, religion and morality. We saw what that led to.

Stick around, tree neck.

pun not intended
we seem to be at cross purposes here, neo.

let's not get confused about whether i'm saying there are christians that love humanity or not. i'm saying i can't think of a single denomination (or any selection of varying ones) that embodies such a value overall.

in theory, it works out just fine. my experience with all denominations is a mountain of hypocrites, some of which are hopefully led by genuine human beings.

this is my experience with all religions. the genuinely kind people tend to get stepped on. hey, jesus himself got nailed to a piece of wood, right? that should tell you a bit about the lot that caring people get on this planet.

that's all i'm saying. they only reason christians get noticed around here more than others is, one, they really are trying to take over the country, which sucks- and two, there are much more of them in our daily lives than muslims for instance. whether you're pious or hypocrite is an issue with anyone, but moreso when you traipse around the planet demanding people join your numbers. it's not an attack on you or your religion, believe it or not- just a measure of realism.

i have to say xingu, that's a marvelous way to phrase it, but i'm just as disturbed when (so-called) liberals start talking that way in a campaign, if not moreso.

people shouldn't be running a campaign as if god's backing them, ever. it reeks of one of hitler's little "i am germany and germany is god" rants. in fact, the less our politicians talk about god, the less unrighteous this country will be. right now we're skirting really important issues, and god's a really great big thing, whenever you need something enormous to hide a coop or a dictatorship behind. i'm quite honestly disturbed to hear hillary is saying such things, but i found the source very questionable (at best.)

I would be cautious about the quotes Real posted. One can depend that out of context quotes from conservative websites about liberals or evolutionist will most always give a false picture.

I would love to see the entire sentence this "instrument of God" quote was taken from and also the context in which it was said.

Cut and pasting speechs has become an art form with conservatives.

This quote from Real was from an article written by Dr. Paul Kengor and featured in conservative websites such as http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=ED3D3AFE-3996-4CF5-91F4-13DC5A702AC2

Here's a CNN report on Obama's visit to the SC evangelical church. He is not reported to have said that he is an "instrument of God" who is going to create a Kingdom on earth as Kengor's article suggests.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/08/obama.faith/index.html

Could you please be more specific? Could you please provide a quote where xingu takes issue with conservatives for invocations of religion comparable to Obama's and Clinton's?

from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/25/AR2007092501754.html



Feel better if it's a liberal house org reporting it?