• 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!

Is America a Christian Nation?

Is America a Christian nation?

  • Total voters
    55
Bodhisattva said:
OK I see how you are differentiating. Semantics really though... A Christian Nation is a Nation of Christians to me. The two are synonymous.
Click to expand...
Why?

It is a clear distinction, as I understand the situation.

So how do you equate the two?

Please explain.
 
Nope America is not a Christan Nation, because it is a secular nation that has many Ideas that are based on many different religious ideals. Just look up Free Masonry ideals, since a lot of the founding fathers were Masons.

The Masons got ideals from many different religions of the time


More information about the masons
 
Last edited:
RyrineaHaruno said:
Nope America is not a Christan Nation, because it is a secular nation that has many Ideas that are based on many different religious ideals. Just look up Free Masonry ideals, since a lot of the founding fathers were Masons.

The Masons got ideals from many different religions of the time

More information about the masons
Click to expand...


Could you please explain how America is a "Secular' nation? What is your basis for that? What do the founding fathers have to do with regards to the nation?
 
Zyphlin said:
In that case, as I asked him, is it ever actually possible to HAVE a nation since there is almost never going to be a time where 100% of a particular geographical locations population is going to share that commonality to the last man.
Click to expand...

It's easily possible to have a nation. Its impossible to do so in a geographical region as large as the US based on a single personal choice made by the population (which is what a person's religion is), though, since the population will not all make the same choices. But one can base it on the shared history and politics of that geographical region without having to worry about not including the whole population, because the entire population is naturally included in that shared history and politics. Even if someone comes form another country, they are adopting the shared history of the US as their own when they come here. We can say that the US is a Republican Nation (as in Republic, not party).

The problem here is not that the US cannot be considered a "nation", because it can.

It's that many people want to pigeon hole that "nation" as a Christian one specifically, but that is a social trait that is determined by personal choice.

They want to define the super-nation based on a trait that is not shared by all members of that nation.

There are members of a Christian nation within the US.

But that Christian nation does not end at the geographical borders of the US. It is all over the globe.

The problem here is that when discussing the "US" nation (which is geographical and political), we cannot use social traits. We have to stick with geographical and political commonalities or else we are changing the defining parameters of "nation" midstream.

When discussing the US as a nation, we can only mean Nation-state because the US is a Nation-state. We cannot separate the "state" part of the discussion without also separating the "US" part of the discussion.

That's where the equivocation was odccuring.

There is no "yes and No" answer here becasue the US cannot be a Christian-nation. It can only contain a portion of the world's Chrtistian nation. It cannot itself be a "Chritsin Nation" unless one discusses Christianity politically, as in a theocracy. This is because the US is a political body, not a social body.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
In the realm of this discussion, first and foremost, they wouldn't drive the country. The country is the territory. You're suggestion would be that they drive and control the STATE. No, the people of a nation do not necessarily have to control nor drive the state, though that does not mean they can't.

A Nation is a group of individuals (in this case defined as within the borders of the country known as the USA) sharing a common religion, ethnicity, language, culture, and/or history. There's some dispute in regards to the and or or there, and political ideology has figured into it as well. However, control over the State is essentially irrelevant to whether or not a nation exists.
Click to expand...

I agree. Saying America is a Christian nation is just like saying America is an English speaking nation.
 
Jerry said:
I agree. Saying America is a Christian nation is just like saying America is an English speaking nation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's misleading to say these things because it redefines the term "nation" midstream.

If we use the term nation to mean "A population with a shared history, culture, language, or religion" we cannot use geographical boundaries to limit that nation. That nation is already defined as being the population with twhatever shared characeristic is chosen.

Limiting these "nations" to America or the US is a false limitation because they are not limited to the US.

America has a portion of the overall English speaking nation within it, but it the English speaking nation is not limited by the US borders. The English speaking nation extends all over the globe. One can say that a substantial portion of the people withint the US are members of an English-speaking nation, but one cannot say that the US is itself an English speaking Nation.

One can add additional limits to desribe a "nation" by incorporating more characteristics to the limitations, such as discussing the "Enlish Speaking Christian Nation". Again, though, this isn't limited by geography. English Speaking Christians are found all over the world as well.

If we priovide geographical limitations, then we need to look at all the people within that geographical region and the characteristics shared by them all. For example, the US. Not every one in the US speaks english, so the population (nation) of people that is contained within the borders of the US cannot be described an English speaking nation. They are not all Christian, so they cannot be described as a Christian nation. The nation that is contained within those bounrdaries can only be described by shared characteristics. Not predominant characteristics. It must be 100% if it isn't 100%, it isn't actually shared by the nation as a whole.
 
Tucker Case said:
Exactly. It's misleading to say these things because it redefines the term "nation" midstream.
Click to expand...

And then the rest of your post goes on to do exactly that. Nice contradiction there :2wave:
 
Tucker Case said:
My point was to rebut your erroneous claims. I've done that. What's your point?
Click to expand...

Oh my bad. See I thought you were going to use that definition correctly and in context. I see now that you're playing devil's advocate. Carry on.
 
Jerry said:
Oh my bad. See I thought you were going to use that definition correctly and in context. I see now that you're playing devil's advocate. Carry on.
Click to expand...

I'm using the definition of nation stated as the basis of the thread and, as such, the discussion. What discussion are you having?
 
Tucker Case said:
I'm using the definition of nation stated as the basis of the thread and, as such, the discussion. What discussion are you having?
Click to expand...

Right, you're using the definition "sharing a common religion, ethnicity, language, culture, and/or history". You're not using it correctly, but you are using it. I know. Gotcha. No need to keep declaring it.

Please let us know when you're willing to refocus on the example 'nation' which is the topic of this thread.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Right, you're using the definition "sharing a common religion, ethnicity, language, culture, and/or history". You're not using it correctly, but you are using it. I know. Gotcha. No need to keep declaring it.

Please let us know when you're willing to refocus on the example 'nation' which is the topic of this thread.
Click to expand...

Saying I'm not using it correctly isn't the same as showing how I'm not using it correctly. If you can't show it, I must assume that your claim is false. No need to keep declaring it.

Let me know when you are willing to put forth an argument as a rebuttal instead of making unsubstantiated claims in lieu of a rebuttal.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:

Saying I'm not using it correctly isn't the same as showing how I'm not using it correctly. If you can't show it, I must assume that your claim is false. No need to keep declaring it.

Let me know when you are willing to put forth an argument as a rebuttal instead of making unsubstantiated claims in lieu of a rebuttal.
Click to expand...

I guess I'm not very motivated to demonstrate anything since you aren't either. All I needed to do was bring your contradiction to your attention. It's your job to fix it. I'm willing to help, but only after you show initiative to fix yourself first.

You do yourself no favors when you cite a definition and then try to distill out it's components. Doing so is, in fact, dishonest. Take the lead by using the definition as a whole as it applies to the example 'nation'.
 
Last edited:
So wait...

Now you're arguing that you can't have nations that are specific to a specific geographical area? Or that if anyone outside of the geographical area that's defined is shares the same common bond that it invalidates the notion of a nation?

So if there's anywhere else in the world where people believe in having a Republican form of law then you can't actually call America a Republican Nation because there's someone else outside of that border that follows it so they're just part of a larger nation. If anyone ANYWHERE else believes in individual freedom then you can't considered America a Nation of Individualists because peopel exist outside of that. If anyone happened to be from America but is no longer a citizen of the country while still holding the history and culture of the country as a formative portion of their life and something they still consider part of their history then it invalidates the notion of America as a Nation because people outside of the country can share in that nation and therefore invalidates calling it an American nation because its one that stretches the world.

Where are you getting this notion that somehow you can not speak about a specific population within a confined location when speaking about a Nation? Nothing says the "population" that is being defined MUST be the ENTIRE WORLD.

Indeed, once more you destroy your own argument by your own requirements that you set down in order to disprove other peoples arguments. If the existance of someone that shares that bond outside of the geographical area of the United States makes it impossible for the United States to be considered an "X" nation then there is, once again, little to no nations that can be defined as "American" as it is likely neigh impossible to find ANYTHING that you could use to define that nation that is not held by someone, somewhere, elsewhere in the world.
 
Last edited:
I'd say our state religion is actually materialism, and our national deity is mammon, if we want to be brutally honest.
 
Jerry said:
I guess I'm not very motivated to demonstrate anything since you aren't either. All I needed to do was bring your contradiction to your attention. It's your job to fix it. I'm willing to help, but only after you show initiative to fix yourself first.
Click to expand...

In order to bring a contradiction to my attention, you have to actually show that a contradiction is present. You making a claim without substantiating it isn't showing anything except that you can make a claim without substantiating it.
 
Catz Part Deux said:
I'd say our state religion is actually materialism, and our national deity is mammon, if we want to be brutally honest.
Click to expand...

Thank you for your brutally honesty.

Whose talking about a state religion?
 
Zyphlin said:
Thank you for your brutally honesty.

Whose talking about a state religion?
Click to expand...

In light of the above, I'd suggest that America is a PAGAN nation, not a Christian one. Our values/behaviors reflect consumerism and greed, not christianity.
 
Tucker Case said:
In order to bring a contradiction to my attention, you have to actually show that a contradiction is present. You making a claim without substantiating it isn't showing anything except that you can make a claim without substantiating it.
Click to expand...

Oh no, I stopped trying to force the horse to drink long ago.
 
Zyphlin said:
So wait...

Now you're arguing that you can't have nations that are specific to a specific geographical area? Or that if anyone outside of the geographical area that's defined is shares the same common bond that it invalidates the notion of a nation?
Click to expand...

No. I'm saying that if it is limited to a geographical region, it must be shared by all people within that geographical region.

I'm also saying that if a trait is being used to define a nation that isn't limited to that geographical region, nor is it universally present within that region, it cannot be used to describe that region on it's own.

So if there's anywhere else in the world where people believe in having a Republican form of law then you can't actually call America a Republican Nation because there's someone else outside of that border that follows it so they're just part of a larger nation. If anyone ANYWHERE else believes in individual freedom then you can't considered America a Nation of Individualists because peopel exist outside of that. If anyone happened to be from America but is no longer a citizen of the country while still holding the history and culture of the country as a formative portion of their life and something they still consider part of their history then it invalidates the notion of America as a Nation because people outside of the country can share in that nation and therefore invalidates calling it an American nation because its one that stretches the world.
Click to expand...

If the entirety of the US has a Republican form of government, then Republican can be used to desribe the geographical region that is the US because all mebers of the population within that region are republicans. They share that trait as well as being confined in thatgeographical region universally.



Where are you getting this notion that somehow you can not speak about a specific population within a confined location when speaking about a Nation? Nothing says the "population" that is being defined MUST be the ENTIRE WORLD.
Click to expand...

And I mentioned that it doesn't need to be the entire world. Adding extra limitations on the nation is possible, even geographic limitations.

But all of the people within the nation must share any trait that is being used to describe that nation.

It's based on what sharing is. If we have a group of 3 people, and two of them share a hotdog by cutting it in half, those two people shared a hotdog. It would be innacurate to say that those three people shared a hotdog because the third person was not involved. 66% perscent of that population shared a hotdog, but the population as a whole did not share the hotdog.

It could be 4 people and with 3 of them sharing the hotdog and it remains true that saying "those four people shared a hotdog" is inaccurate. If a nation involves sharing something, it has to include the entire population.

Indeed, once more you destroy your own argument by your own requirements that you set down in order to disprove other peoples arguments. If the existance of someone that shares that bond outside of the geographical area of the United States makes it impossible for the United States to be considered an "X" nation then there is, once again, little to no nations that can be defined as "American" as it is likely neigh impossible to find ANYTHING that you could use to define that nation that is not held by someone, somewhere, elsewhere in the world.
Click to expand...

I didn't destroy my argument because I didn't say those things.

I pointed ou tthat geographical limitations can occur:

If we priovide geographical limitations, then we need to look at all the people within that geographical region and the characteristics shared by them all. For example, the US. Not every one in the US speaks english, so the population (nation) of people that is contained within the borders of the US cannot be described an English speaking nation. They are not all Christian, so they cannot be described as a Christian nation. The nation that is contained within those bounrdaries can only be described by shared characteristics. Not predominant characteristics. It must be 100% if it isn't 100%, it isn't actually shared by the nation as a whole.
Click to expand...

As I noted above, the sharing of the hotdog can be a predominant characte4ristic of the majority of the group, but it is false to use that term to describe the group as a whole.

In order to use a term to describe a nation, that term must be shared by the population of that nation. If we are discussing the overall Christian nation, it is larger than the US. It also does not fully encompass the US. That's the Key to the discussion. If it did fully encompass the population ofthe US, we could be described as a "Christian nation" free from qualifiers.

Now, the thing is, one could describe the US as a predominantly Christian Nation. That qualifier allows for accuracy in the decription. Removing that qualifier is both misleading and inaccurate.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom