• 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
Catz Part Deux said:
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.
Click to expand...

So what would make that Pagan? Would that not just be a Materialistic Nation? Are you not just trying totrying to piss off and **** on religious people by making a reach by declaring it "pagan" rather than actually term it appropriately for what you're describing. What religion is consumerism? What religion is greed? Where in the bible does it say that you exhibit greed you're somehow not a Christian but a Pagan? Your choice of pagan seems to be nothing but a non sequiter designed to flip off Christians rather than actually contribute to the discussion, which is sad as your latter argument is not a poor one.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
No. I'm saying that if it is limited to a geographical region, it must be shared by all people within that geographical region.
Click to expand...

So nations are either a grouping of people within the entire world to you, or every person within a specific geographic region.

So your earlier claims that the United States was an Individualist Nation...you're suggesting that EVERY American holds individualistic values and principles in regards to their lives and their government or are you retracting your defining of America as an Individualistic Nation?

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.
Click to expand...

As above. Individualism isn't limited to just America, and I believe it would be impossible to say that every person in the country subscribes to the notion of individualist philosophy in regards to life and governance, so do you retract your previous designation of the America nation based on your own definition?

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.
Click to expand...

Except for Republican GOVERNMENT is not the same as a shared belief that Republican form of Government is the best and proper form of government. One can live within America and despise the notion of a Republican government, be against the form of government, refrain from activity in such a form of government, work to overturn such a government foundation, and reject the notion that it is the kind of government we should have. We would be a Republican STATE, because some individual not liking it doesn't change what the government is, but by your own definition we could not be a Republican Nation because not everyone in the nation subscribes to that belief system and its not exclusive to our geographical location.

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.
Click to expand...

This happens routinely though. Are you suggesting we do not group people together even such a isolated incident as you're talking about unless everyone in it? If I'm inviting a family over and I ask "Are you family hot dog eaters" and 7 of the 9 members of their family eat hot dogs it would not be uncommon for them to say "yes, we are" because in general they are. When I've described my group of friends from back home before I've described us as a "laid back group" despite the fact we have a few guys in the group that are relatively high strung and usually a bit hyper, but for the most part we're laid back and thus the atmosphere produced is as such. As I've said before, this is a difference of what one considers required to make a generalized declaration about a group of people. You require 100% participation, I do not. Yours isn't any more correct or right just because its what you do. I'm not saying yours is invalid, I'm saying yours isn't any more valid then mine. For you, a grouping must be 100% pure for it to be called something. For me, if a super majority of the group fulfills the role then the group as a whole can be considered that role when speaking of it as a group and not as individuals.
 
Tucker Case said:
No. I'm saying that if it is limited to a geographical region, it must be shared by all people within that geographical region.
Click to expand...

Negative. No where, in any manor, is that an established requirement. These are general descriptions, not absolute universal attributes.

I'm sure there were various student groups in your collage. We had one for women, and it was known as a woman's group, even though it had a few men. We had a 'native American group, and it was known as a native American group, even though it had few non-'native members. Same thing.

The rest of your post is a reiteration of that wrong assumption, so while I read it I see no constructive purpose in responding to it.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Apparently you stopped bringing it to the water too.
Click to expand...

The problem is you're not telling us where you're getting these requirements from. You're just claiming they're true without substantiation.

Who said a description had to be universal in order to apply?
 
Zyphlin said:
So nations are either a grouping of people within the entire world to you, or every person within a specific geographic region.

So your earlier claims that the United States was an Individualist Nation...you're suggesting that EVERY American holds individualistic values and principles in regards to their lives and their government or are you retracting your defining of America as an Individualistic Nation?
Click to expand...

Yes, I shouldn't have said that America was an individualistic nation. I was making an argument in refutation of your attempts to claim we were a Christian nation due to "Christianity being the baseline common bond" by showing that the foundational bond of American Culture isn't Christianity, but individualism. That alone doesn't make us a Individualistic nation, though. We are an almost entirely Individualistic Nation, though. I failed to put in that qualifier before.



As above. Individualism isn't limited to just America, and I believe it would be impossible to say that every person in the country subscribes to the notion of individualist philosophy in regards to life and governance, so do you retract your previous designation of the America nation based on your own definition?
Click to expand...

As I noted above, I made a mistake to call America an Individualistic nation. It actually contradicted my initial posts in this thread, where I said the country was to expansive and diverse to have a single culture.

except for Republican GOVERNMENT is not the same as a shared belief that Republican form of Government is the best and proper form of government. One can live within America and despise the notion of a Republican government, be against the form of government, refrain from activity in such a form of government, work to overturn such a government foundation, and reject the notion that it is the kind of government we should have. We would be a Republican STATE, because some individual not liking it doesn't change what the government is, but by your own definition we could not be a Republican Nation because not everyone in the nation subscribes to that belief system and its not exclusive to our geographical location.
Click to expand...

Ah, but if one lives in a communist state and believes in democracy, it doesn't negate the fact that while they are living in that state, they are engaging in communism.



This happens routinely though. Are you suggesting we do not group people together even such a isolated incident as you're talking about unless everyone in it? If I'm inviting a family over and I ask "Are you family hot dog eaters" and 7 of the 9 members of their family eat hot dogs it would not be uncommon for them to say "yes, we are" because in general they are. When I've described my group of friends from back home before I've described us as a "laid back group" despite the fact we have a few guys in the group that are relatively high strung and usually a bit hyper, but for the most part we're laid back and thus the atmosphere produced is as such. As I've said before, this is a difference of what one considers required to make a generalized declaration about a group of people. You require 100% participation, I do not. Yours isn't any more correct or right just because its what you do. I'm not saying yours is invalid, I'm saying yours isn't any more valid then mine. For you, a grouping must be 100% pure for it to be called something. For me, if a super majority of the group fulfills the role then the group as a whole can be considered that role when speaking of it as a group and not as individuals.
Click to expand...

The fact that it happens routinely does not make it accurate. On one hand, you are trying to avoid colloquial misuse of a term (nation to mean political state), but on the other hand, you are defending colloquial misuse of a term.

It's the fallacy of composition. Just because something is true of some or many of the parts, does nto mean it is true of the whole. If we are discussing a group, the only terms that can be used to accurately describe that group are terms that are true for all individuals in that group.

The degree of the majority doesn't matter when it comes to accuracy. If I have a group 19 white people, and one black person and I say "this is a group of white people", I'm always wrong.

That statement will never be accurate because it is not a group of white people. It's a group that is mostly white people, sure, but it isn't a group of white people.
 
Jerry said:
Negative. No where, in any manor, is that an established requirement. These are general descriptions, not absolute universal attributes.

I'm sure there were various student groups in your collage. We had one for women, and it was known as a woman's group, even though it had a few men. We had a 'native American group, and it was known as a native American group, even though it had few non-'native members. Same thing.

The rest of your post is a reiteration of that wrong assumption, so while I read it I see no constructive purpose in responding to it.
Click to expand...

Those groups are not labeled based on the demographics of their membership, they are labeled based on what their agenda is. Women's issues, Native-Americvan issues, etc.

The false assumption here is yours. You are assuming that a label based on a shared agenda is remotely comparable to a label based on demographical constituency.
 
Jerry said:
The problem is you're not telling us where you're getting these requirements from. You're just claiming they're true without substantiation.

Who said a description had to be universal in order to apply?
Click to expand...

The word "shared" makes it necessary and I'm using logic to support my claims.
 
Tucker Case said:
Those groups are not labeled based on the demographics of their membership, they are labeled based on what their agenda is. Women's issues, Native-Americvan issues, etc.

The false assumption here is yours. You are assuming that a label based on a shared agenda is remotely comparable to a label based on demographical constituency.
Click to expand...
...and the Christian founders of America had no agenda? You jest.

The proof applies because it can be demonstrated through other mediums. For example, I'm White. Even though I have a mix of elasticities, I'm identified as White because that is the majority general appearance. Identifying as White in no way means that I am 100% pure Anglo Saxon complete with AKC papers.

Another proof is that I'm pro-life, even though I hold a few pro-choice opinions. The descriptor "pro-life" in no way means that I walk in lock-step with the mainstream ideals.

America is a literate nation even though some of us can't read. America is a North American nation even though we have provinces on other continents. America is a nation of immigrants even though Native American tribes were here all along.

If I were to enter Iran, or Jordan, or Pakistan, those countries would'nt stop being Muslim nations. If I had a duel citizenship with Israel, Israel would not stop being a Jewish nation. Ireland is a Catholic nation (more-so than America is Christian) even though it has a healthy level of non-Catholics.
 
Last edited:
I think that what Tucker is trying to say, perhaps, is:

When describing a nation, one must take all aspects into account.

So, the nation known as “The United States of America” can be described thus:

The USA is the representative republic that controls the land area known as “The United States”, “The United States of America”, or “America”, among other titles.

Its population’s religion is predominantly Christian, with smaller numbers of (likely all) other religions.

And various descriptors of that nature.

As I understand things, one cannot describe it by saying “The US is a Christian nation”.

Although in very general terms, that might be somewhat accurate, it utterly fails to take into account those who believe in the Jewish (and its various aspects), Islamic (and its various aspects), Buddhist (does it have aspects? Probably.), Hindu (and its various aspects), LDS (and ITS various aspects, if they exist), One of the vast number of religions grouped under the “pagan” umbrella, etc., etc., and so forth.

All of those religions (and some beliefs that are NOT considered religions, but are still a belief system) have some effect on the overall consciousness that makes up the nation known as “The United States of America”.

Edit: Thus, while as Jerry has stated, you could generalize and call the US a "Christian nation"...
I consider it inaccurate, as in my mind, calling it such gives the impression that it is controlled by Christianity.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
...and the Christian founders of America had no agenda? You jest.
Click to expand...

Thank you for showing that you are not using the definition set forth by Zyph in the thread regarding a Cultural nation.

We're having a different discussion from the one you want to have.

Also, the Agenda of the Group known as the US is not a Christian one, so the comparison to a woman's groups would still be a false comparison.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
So what would make that Pagan? Would that not just be a Materialistic Nation? Are you not just trying totrying to piss off and **** on religious people by making a reach by declaring it "pagan" rather than actually term it appropriately for what you're describing. What religion is consumerism? What religion is greed? Where in the bible does it say that you exhibit greed you're somehow not a Christian but a Pagan? Your choice of pagan seems to be nothing but a non sequiter designed to flip off Christians rather than actually contribute to the discussion, which is sad as your latter argument is not a poor one.
Click to expand...

Do you understand the meaning of the term pagan? I'm guessing no.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=pagan

In its simplest sense, pagan means only "not Christian."
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
Although in very general terms, that might be somewhat accurate, it utterly fails to take into account those who believe in the Jewish (and its various aspects), Islamic (and its various aspects), Buddhist (does it have aspects? Probably.), Hindu (and its various aspects), LDS (and ITS various aspects, if they exist), One of the vast number of religions grouped under the “pagan” umbrella, etc., etc., and so forth.
Click to expand...

It was never supposed to, either. It was only supposed to give a very general impression of the philosophical atmosphere. That's it.

If you combine unequal quantities of light, the resulting single beam will have a general hew of some color.
 
Last edited:
Tucker Case said:
Thank you for showing that you are not using the definition set forth by Zyph in the thread regarding a Cultural nation.

We're having a different discussion from the one you want to have.

Also, the Agenda of the Group known as the US is not a Christian one, so the comparison to a woman's groups would still be a false comparison.
Click to expand...

You're free to think so but the proof is demonstrated through other mediums, so it stands.
 
The Mark said:
...it utterly fails to take into account those who believe in the Jewish (and its various aspects), Islamic (and its various aspects), Buddhist (does it have aspects? Probably.), Hindu (and its various aspects), LDS (and ITS various aspects, if they exist), One of the vast number of religions grouped under the “pagan” umbrella, etc., etc., and so forth....
Click to expand...

Actually, describing the US as such goes as far as to exclude those people from being a member of the Nation that is bounded by the US borders.

But even more important, even if the majority of something can be described one way if split up individualy, it does not mean that the entirety of that thing can be described that way.

Lean muscle is 75% water. A very large majority (similar to the proportion of Christians in the US, in fact). That doesn't mean that calling Lean muscle "water muscle" is an accurate description.

I can make a mixture of hydocloric acid and water that is 95% water and 5% hydrocloric acid. If I said "Hey, that's a water liquid" I'd be labeling it inaccurately.
 
Jerry said:
You're free to think so but the proof is demonstrated through other mediums, so it stands.
Click to expand...

The Agenda of the US is not a Christian agenda, so it doesn't warrant being labeled as a Christian nation even using your own standard of comparing it to a Woman's group, so it doesn't stand.

Being Christian =/= Christian agenda.
 
Tucker Case said:
Thank you for showing that you are not using the definition set forth by Zyph in the thread regarding a Cultural nation.

We're having a different discussion from the one you want to have.

Also, the Agenda of the Group known as the US is not a Christian one, so the comparison to a woman's groups would still be a false comparison.
Click to expand...

I made a cup of coffee this morning.

I like a lot of cream and a truck load of sugar in my coffee, an ice cube to cool it as I don't like hot liquids...and just occasionally a shot of Kahlua if I don't need to be anywhere.

It's fair to say that there is more milk, ice, cream and sugar in my cup of coffee then there is actual coffee.

It remains, non the less, a cup of coffee, because that is the overarching theme of the drink. Despite all the other things added to it, the drink retains the coffee's "agenda".
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
If you're saying that America is not today following Christian ideals, I have to give you ground there.
Click to expand...

Another term that may be less emotionally charged to some would be "heathen." First, I think we already have a competing state religion with its own temples and dogma (pledge of allegiance, anyone) that is extremely nationalistic. Beyond that, our value system is not reflective, by and large, of Christianity.

This isn't a "the founding fathers were atheists and deists" position, but rather, simply that our society is really not very Christian, even though it claims to be.
 
Jerry said:
I made a cup of coffee this morning.

I like a lot of cream and a truck load of sugar in my coffee, an ice cube to cool it as I don't like hot liquids...and just occasionally a shot of Kahlua if I don't need to be anywhere.

It's fair to say that there is more milk, ice, cream and sugar in my cup of coffee then there is actual coffee.

It remains, non the less, a cup of coffee, because that is the overarching theme of the drink.
Click to expand...
Because it matters not to the majority of people what is contained in that coffee cup.

On the other hand, if you were making a cup of coffee for someone else, rather than yourself, would you put random quantities of those additives into said coffee without asking what they wanted in their coffee?

On a very similar note, do you think the ~ 24% of the US population who are NOT Christian would enjoy being called members of a Christian nation, simply because they live in the US?

I am 100% sure that at least some would take issue.
 
Tucker Case said:
The Agenda of the US is not a Christian agenda, so it doesn't warrant being labeled as a Christian nation even using your own standard of comparing it to a Woman's group, so it doesn't stand.

Being Christian =/= Christian agenda.
Click to expand...

See I can't respect that opinion because only someone who hasn't read the Deceleration of Independence could honestly believe such a thing. The very idea that we Americans have the authority to rule ourselves is Christian. We used the God of Abraham as our justification, so to now refuse that original authority is to say, exactly, that we belong to the crown.

We would need a new deceleration to assert otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Jerry said:
Shared implies no such thing. You need evidence, and you need to link to it.
Click to expand...

Shared - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Main Entry: 3share
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): shared; shar·ing
Date: 1590

transitive verb 1 : to divide and distribute in shares : apportion —usually used with out <shared out the land among his heirs>
2 a : to partake of, use, experience, occupy, or enjoy with others b : to have in common <they share a passion for opera>
3 : to grant or give a share in —often used with with <shared the last of her water with us>
4 : to tell (as thoughts, feelings, or experiences) to others —often used with withintransitive verb 1 : to have a share —used with in <we all shared in the fruits of our labor>
2 : to apportion and take shares of something
3 : to talk about one's thoughts, feelings, or experiences with others
Click to expand...

In this context, the bold definition applies. If the thing that is being discussed is something that the group as a whole does not have in common, the group as a whole does not share it. If the group as a whole has this in common, it is shared.

The nation (read: people) that is defined by US borders does not have Christianity in common (true) then the nation is not a Christian one.
 
Jerry said:
See I can't respect that opinion because only someone who hasn't read the Deceleration of Independence could honestly believe such a thing. The very idea that we have the authority to rule ourselves is Christian. We used the God of Abraham as our justification, so to now refuse that original authority is to say, exactly, that we belong to the crown.

We would need a new deceleration to assert otherwise.
Click to expand...

Only someone who has never Read the DoI could possibly thing that the use of the terms Nature's God and "creator" means that we used the God of Abraham as our justification.
 
The Mark said:
Because it matters not to the majority of people what is contained in that coffee cup.

On the other hand, if you were making a cup of coffee for someone else, rather than yourself, would you put random quantities of those additives into said coffee without asking what they wanted in their coffee?
Click to expand...

See that's my point. Regardless of what I add to it, it's still a cup of coffee.

The Mark said:
On a very similar note, do you think the ~ 24% of the US population who are NOT Christian would enjoy being called members of a Christian nation, simply because they live in the US?
Click to expand...

Oh let me turn that on you and ask if you think the 76% of the US population who are Christian enjoy being told they're in a secular nation :mrgreen:

The Mark said:
I am 100% sure that at least some would take issue.
Click to expand...

Their free to move to any of those Atheist nations if they choose.
 
Tucker Case said:
Only someone who has never read the DoI could possibly think that the use of the terms Nature's God and "Creator" means that we used the God of Abraham as our justification.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom