• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

America is or is not a Christian Nation.

Is America a Christian Nation?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 25.7%
  • No

    Votes: 75 74.3%

  • Total voters
    101
They weren't based on "Christian" principles just because they were Christians. I have proven this. The very First Amendment contradicts the first few (at least) Ten Commandments. They are not based on Christian beliefs. You may wish to believe this, but you cannot prove it.

You haven't proven anything. Just because ALL of the commandments are included doesn't prove a thing. Just because the founders wanted others to be able to practice their own beliefs without being persecuted because of it does NOT mean that our "rights" as outlined in the BoR are not based upon Christian principals, because they were. They believed that our rights were God given and the BoR is supposed to be so that the government cannot intrude upon them.

THEN, we have people like you who think the government should grant us rights. :roll:
 
You haven't proven anything. Just because ALL of the commandments are included doesn't prove a thing. Just because the founders wanted others to be able to practice their own beliefs without being persecuted because of it does NOT mean that our "rights" as outlined in the BoR are not based upon Christian principals, because they were. They believed that our rights were God given and the BoR is supposed to be so that the government cannot intrude upon them.

THEN, we have people like you who think the government should grant us rights. :roll:

All of the Commandments are included in what? They are not included in our laws, not in reality. Those laws that coincide with some Commandments could just as easily be said to come from other cultures or simply the principles of individual rights rather than the Bible.

You are the one making the assertion that the rights outlined within the US Constitution (BoR technically only covers the first 10 Amendments) are "biblically based". You haven't provided any evidence to prove this.

Some may have believed that our rights were "God-given" but that doesn't make them any more right about it than you are. Heck, they can't even prove that God inspired the Bible so therefore they cannot prove that any rights they feel came from the Bible or Christianity actually came from God to begin with instead of just men.

I am of the belief that rights only exist when we are willing to fight for those rights. Nothing can grant us any rights at all. We must be willing to fight for our own rights against any who attempt to restrict or violate those rights.
 
All of the Commandments are included in what? They are not included in our laws, not in reality. Those laws that coincide with some Commandments could just as easily be said to come from other cultures or simply the principles of individual rights rather than the Bible.

You are the one making the assertion that the rights outlined within the US Constitution (BoR technically only covers the first 10 Amendments) are "biblically based". You haven't provided any evidence to prove this.

Some may have believed that our rights were "God-given" but that doesn't make them any more right about it than you are. Heck, they can't even prove that God inspired the Bible so therefore they cannot prove that any rights they feel came from the Bible or Christianity actually came from God to begin with instead of just men.

I am of the belief that rights only exist when we are willing to fight for those rights. Nothing can grant us any rights at all. We must be willing to fight for our own rights against any who attempt to restrict or violate those rights.

So you don't believe that the BoR and our "natural" rights are based upon Christianity in this country? Seriously? You are just in denial apparently.

Q: What were the founders’ personal religious beliefs?

A: They varied widely. The religious views of the framers of the Constitution, as indicated by their own writings, ran the gamut from traditional Christianity to freethought, which included the kind of Enlightenment Deism that posited a god who set the universe in motion but subsequently took no part in the affairs of men-the “unconcerned deity” to whom Scalia refers in his McCreary opinion. The founders’ favorite word for God was “Providence.” Thomas Jefferson wrote a book during his first term as president in which he explicitly stated his belief that Jesus was a great prophet and a good man but not divine-or the son of a divinity. What the founders shared, regardless of their personal religious beliefs, was the Enlightenment conviction that if God existed, he expected humans to rely on their own reason to determine the course of human destiny; the assignment of faith to the sphere of individual conscience rather than public duty; and hostility to all ecclesiastical hierarchies. These rationalist convictions carried the day when the former revolutionaries sat down to write the Constitution. The nature of our government was determined not by the founders’ private religious beliefs but by their public actions, which separated church and state. - Susan Jacoby
I think the above kind of solidifies that, yes, Christian beliefs most definitely played a HUGE role in the nature of our rights. Unlike what you stated, they are NOT based upon men or governmental entities.
 
So you don't believe that the BoR and our "natural" rights are based upon Christianity in this country? Seriously? You are just in denial apparently.

I think the above kind of solidifies that, yes, Christian beliefs most definitely played a HUGE role in the nature of our rights. Unlike what you stated, they are NOT based upon men or governmental entities.

You just proved that it would come from "Enlightenment principles" not Christian principles. Using human reason, not religion, to determine our course. You can't prove that "Enlightenment principles" are Christian based either.
 
You just proved that it would come from "Enlightenment principles" not Christian principles. Using human reason, not religion, to determine our course. You can't prove that "Enlightenment principles" are Christian based either.

Using BOTH. :mrgreen: Since the founders were mostly Christian, it only makes sense, right? They were also big on freedom from being forced into a specific religion, however, but that does not mean that the basic principals were based upon their Christian upbringings and beliefs. Again, just common sense.
 
Using BOTH. :mrgreen: Since the founders were mostly Christian, it only makes sense, right? They were also big on freedom from being forced into a specific religion, however, but that does not mean that the basic principals were based upon their Christian upbringings and beliefs. Again, just common sense.

No it doesn't. Being Christian does not make everything they think of "Christian" based. It merely means a Christian thought of it.
 
No it doesn't. Being Christian does not make everything they think of "Christian" based. It merely means a Christian thought of it.

Good Lord!!! Of course, most of their principals and beliefs were based on their religious beliefs, especially when it comes to natural rights of people. They believed they were bestowed by "GOD."
 
Good Lord!!! Of course, most of their principals and beliefs were based on their religious beliefs, especially when it comes to natural rights of people. They believed they were bestowed by "GOD."

No, they weren't. They were based on Enlightenment, which said "use your own reasoning to determine your own path". Nothing about that is religious or Christian in nature. In fact, it is pretty anti- established religions since it says you shouldn't believe what you are told but figure it out for yourself.
 
No, they weren't. They were based on Enlightenment, which said "use your own reasoning to determine your own path". Nothing about that is religious or Christian in nature. In fact, it is pretty anti- established religions since it says you shouldn't believe what you are told but figure it out for yourself.

Okay, keep being silly and in denial. :roll:
 
Those are not totally related.

As she pointed out, we were formed and still function based on certain moral standards that are rooted in Biblical tradition. I agree that many laws that were put into place, based on Biblical interpretation have been reversed over the years, not the least of which was legal slavery and Jim Crow laws. One of the next will be equality under the law for gays.

However, this is in no way related to what you say here: "New generations are not only turning their back on faith but are actively fighting agaisnt (sic) strict traditional religious views on social standards." Many religions are transforming as well, with less focus on exclusion and more focus on inclusion; the Catholic Church through it's new Pope is an example. There are also many religions that are going strongly in the other direction; just look at the current unrest in the Middle East.

So, you've conflated different issues to try and make a point, that many would agree with in part or in whole, but completely disagree with your reasoning.

I dunno. I don't buy that "morals" are rooted because of the bible. Morals are subjective and evolve as society evolves. I assure you that killing someone or stealing their property or smack talking to their mama would result in getting slapped upside the head long before anyone ever heard of God, Jesus, Yehweh, or whatever.

When I hear someone tell me that all things considered to be "moral," are because of biblical teachings, I think that is a bit assuming. That would be like someone from the Carpenter's Union telling me they invented the hammer. I just don't buy it.
 
I do think that's an interesting point. I've noticed on this site that we have Christians who are pro death penalty. I've been told by some that this is somehow acceptable (I can't remember their reasoning), but IMO that is a rather hypocritical stance. I would think they would let God make those decisions.

Most Christians I know who support it do so for two reasons
1. It is biblical
2. They see the justice system as doling out vengeance and not justice. Personally I think that is a inmature view of the world.
Only a victim of a crime can come to peace about whatever has happened to them.
 
Most Christians I know who support it do so for two reasons
1. It is biblical
2. They see the justice system as doling out vengeance and not justice. Personally I think that is a inmature view of the world.
Only a victim of a crime can come to peace about whatever has happened to them.

IMO, it is rather contradictory. Judge not, unless you think he's a bad guy, then judge away and put to death too. It's barbaric and unnecessary IMO.
 
I dunno. I don't buy that "morals" are rooted because of the bible. Morals are subjective and evolve as society evolves. I assure you that killing someone or stealing their property or smack talking to their mama would result in getting slapped upside the head long before anyone ever heard of God, Jesus, Yehweh, or whatever.

When I hear someone tell me that all things considered to be "moral," are because of biblical teachings, I think that is a bit assuming. That would be like someone from the Carpenter's Union telling me they invented the hammer. I just don't buy it.

Agreed. I was describing how our country and our moral standards have evolved, including the ones which the founding fathers even stated were based on a belief in God. And, then I went even further to discuss that religion at large is evolving and transforming as well.
 
Agreed. I was describing how our country and our moral standards have evolved, including the ones which the founding fathers even stated were based on a belief in God. And, then I went even further to discuss that religion at large is evolving and transforming as well.
Famous Atheist Richard Dawkins says his country, England, IS a 'Christian Country'.
It's the Same in that respect here.
And because we are/that's our genesis (if you will), he states the Bible should be taught as literature, and that other literature, references, and History, are Not understandable without it.
We are a Christian Country in character, if not a theocracy.
Additionally, app 40+% of us are literalist/creationist.

Mins 3:30-4:30



He also makes several other accurate comments on Islam v Christianity.
That being Christianity, in this case Anglicanism, is relatively benign compared to Intolerant Islam.
Something I have also stated many times.
 
Last edited:
2. They see the justice system as doling out vengeance and not justice. Personally I think that is a inmature view of the world.

They see the justice system as a personal tool, as opposed to a societal tool. Justice, for society, means two things: public safety (incarceration) and redemption (rehabilitation). Those two things justify the very existence of society.

Only a victim of a crime can come to peace about whatever has happened to them.

Criminal justice for an individual victim can never be achieved (it is upon them to be made whole) and often takes the form of emotion-based vengeance.
 
They see the justice system as a personal tool, as opposed to a societal tool. Justice, for society, means two things: public safety (incarceration) and redemption (rehabilitation). Those two things justify the very existence of society.



Criminal justice for an individual victim can never be achieved (it is upon them to be made whole) and often takes the form of emotion-based vengeance.

Vengeance doesn't solve anything and honestly isn't going to make one feel better.
 
Vengeance doesn't solve anything and honestly isn't going to make one feel better.

We know that, but it seems many do not.
 
Famous Atheist Richard Dawkins says his country, England, IS a 'Christian Country'.
It's the Same in that respect here.
And because we are/that's our genesis (if you will), he states the Bible should be taught as literature, and that other literature, references, and History, are Not understandable without it.
We are a Christian Country in character, if not a theocracy.
Additionally, app 40+% of us are literalist/creationist.

Mins 3:30-4:30



He also makes several other accurate comments on Islam v Christianity.
That being Christianity, in this case Anglicanism, is relatively benign compared to Intolerant Islam.
Something I have also stated many times.


First of all, England is much different than America. In fact, England actually has an official state religion/state church, the Anglican Church of England. They have a special provision for this church in their Constitution. They are not like us in that matter because we have no church or religion specifically listed within our US Constitution. That was part of the point. Many of our ancestors didn't want to be ruled by the Church of England, so they came here in groups looking to escape that (whether due to their more accepting or more demanding religious views). This made our Founding Fathers realize that it was a bad idea to single any specific religion, even major religion, out as deserving special consideration under our laws.

Our history is easily understandable without knowing the Bible or what is in the Bible. The only way the Bible should ever be taught as "literature" is if it is to show the major problem with games such as telephone or how simple stories can easily be turned into something that people believe without question.
 
First of all, England is much different than America. In fact, England actually has an official state religion/state church, the Anglican Church of England. They have a special provision for this church in their Constitution. They are not like us in that matter because we have no church or religion specifically listed within our US Constitution. That was part of the point. Many of our ancestors didn't want to be ruled by the Church of England, so they came here in groups looking to escape that (whether due to their more accepting or more demanding religious views). This made our Founding Fathers realize that it was a bad idea to single any specific religion, even major religion, out as deserving special consideration under our laws.

Our history is easily understandable without knowing the Bible or what is in the Bible. The only way the Bible should ever be taught as "literature" is if it is to show the major problem with games such as telephone or how simple stories can easily be turned into something that people believe without question.
This country was founded by Bible Reading Christians even though tho some were fleeing religious intolerance. They were enlightened in that respect, but still pretty pious by today's standards and was part of their DNA.
Their writings can be and life-styles show this.

And Again, we are an even more Christian country than England now. With 40+% saying they are literalist/creationist... the larger part of the 78% who are merely 'Christian'.
 
Last edited:
This country was founded by Bible Reading Christians even though tho some were fleeing religious intolerance. They were enlightened in that respect, but still pretty pious by today's standards and was part of their DNA.
Their writings can be and life-styles show this.

And Again, we are an even more Christian country than England now. With 40+% saying they are literalist/creationist... the larger part of the 78% who are merely 'Christian'.

And many of them found that although their religions were important to them, it wasn't right to force that religion on others (there were some exceptions to this). They learned this lesson because of England and other places in Europe, which at the time, were ruled by certain denominations of Christianity that showed very little tolerance to other religious beliefs, including those within Christianity.

We developed a lot of that literalist or strict adherence to doctrine much more recently than our founding as a nation. There was more of a call to strictly adhere to Christian principles over just the last century.

By today's standards, most countries were much more strict in their religious adherence than they are today. But we are not a Christian nation because those principles that run our nation, that set our laws and determine if they adhere to the Constitution, the main law of our land are not based in Christianity nor any other religion for that matter.
 
And many of them found that although their religions were important to them, it wasn't right to force that religion on others (there were some exceptions to this). They learned this lesson because of England and other places in Europe, which at the time, were ruled by certain denominations of Christianity that showed very little tolerance to other religious beliefs, including those within Christianity.

We developed a lot of that literalist or strict adherence to doctrine much more recently than our founding as a nation. There was more of a call to strictly adhere to Christian principles over just the last century.

By today's standards, most countries were much more strict in their religious adherence than they are today. But we are not a Christian nation because those principles that run our nation, that set our laws and determine if they adhere to the Constitution, the main law of our land are not based in Christianity nor any other religion for that matter.
Untrue.
Your are Confusing Christian, in character, with Theocracy. This is a misread which I addressed in my first post in the string.
There are No Christian Theocracies, but many Christian countries.
And our law is in good part English/Christian in tradition and most of the founders regular Bible readers.

Consistently/in that vein, Muslim countries correctly think of/characterize us as such too.

In matter of the later issues/additionally, we are among the most pious among Christian Nations in total amount of believers and percentage. Even if we hadn't have been of Christian tradition, we would still be significantly so now.
 
Last edited:
Untrue.
Your are Confusing Christian, in character, with Theocracy. This is a misread which I addressed in my first post in the string.
There are No Christian Theocracies, but many Christian countries.
And our law is in good part English/Christian in tradition and most of the founders regular Bible readers.

Consistently/in that vein, Muslim countries correctly think of/characterize us as such too.

In matter of the later issues/additionally, we are among the most pious among Christian Nations in total amount of believers and percentage. Even if we hadn't have been of Christian tradition, we would still be significantly so now.

We do not have any laws that support any religion, unlike other countries such as England, where they have a national religion, a national church, that is protected within their laws.

I did not say that there were currently any Christian theocracies, but there are easily some countries that could be considered Christian due to their laws recognizing and/or protecting a specific religion as their national religion. England has even prosecuted a person of witchcraft less than 100 years ago, a law based solely on religious beliefs. On the contrary, no one in the US has ever been convicted of witchcraft (at the time of the Salem Witch Trials, we were still colonies, a part of England, the right to freedom of religion had not yet been established).
 
Back
Top Bottom