• 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
And while we're at it, why not include the English speaking parts of Canada in the "nation" that includes the US? where are the lines divided? Especially when politics are removed from the equation (as per the parameters from the get go).

The parameters from the get go spoke specifically to the population within the entity known as "America" or more correctly "The United States of America".
 
Okay this is driving me insane in the other thread so I'm going for a slightly different direction and hopefully not asking three seperate questions as if they'll all the same.

Is America a Christian Nation.



NATION as a political term, not nation in regards to the common vernacular of most Americans where its a synonym for both "state" and "country".

No I think even with the proper use of the term nation we are secular in nature, the American people understand and appreciate the need for secularism, then again it can, also, be stated that the U.S. doesn't actually qualify as a nation to begin with, we do not share a common ancestry, we do not share a common religion, we do not share a common culture, and to a large extent we do not share a common language. Are we a nation? And if so what shared trait defines us as a nation? It would actually seem that we're a state without a nation which IMHO puts us in a very unique position within the world community and has probably played a huge roll in our success.
 
Last edited:
The parameters from the get go spoke specifically to the population within the entity known as "America" or more correctly "The United States of America".

But the issue with that is that the parameters also called for looking at the "cultural" nation instead of just the political nation.

My point is (and always has been) that cultural nations aren't limited by geo-political boundaries.

One of the reasons I mentioned Canada is because of Nova Scotia and other parts of the original New England (As defined by the charter granted by James I to the Plymouth Council for New England) that are now part of Canada.

Hell, New Brunswick was split off of Nova Scotia in 1784 to make a home for the tories who left the newly founded US after we got independence. This is because Nova Scotia would probably have become the 14th US colony if not for the British Naval presence and loyalist government in Halifax. A goodly proportion of the Nova Scotians were in support of the revolution (Unlike Newfoundland which was loyalist to the core).

Colonial Nova Scotia at teh time of the American revolution represents a perfect example of how nations are not defined by political boundaries. The people of Nova Scotia were the same as the people of the 13 US colonies. Their government (and the subsequent geo-political boundaries that government created) was all that separated them from their American counterparts.

Even today, I would argue that the people of New Brunswick are more similar to people from Maine than the people of Arizona are (Especially considering the History of that region post .

And when we're talking about shared history (a portion of the "cultural Nation" definition provided), there's 156-200 years of shared history between Nova Scotia/New Brunswick and Maine prior to Maine getting statehood (assuming that the "shared history" began when these two regions were defined as part of New England in 1620 and ended in 1820 when Maine became a US state).

Whereas, the shared history between Maine and Arizona is only 98 years (assuming it started when Arizona became a State in 1912, and considering the previously mentioned exclusion of US territories that's a fair starting point.

If we do decide take it back to the territory era, then Arizona shares 149 years of history with the old confederate states and 147 years of history with the Yankee states (Arizona was a Confederate Territory by choice before becoming a US territory by force. Also the Confederate Arizona territory was the southern portions of the current states of Arizona and New Mexico, while the US Arizona territory was modern Arizona. An interesting side-note regarding "Cultural Nations" and geo-political boundaries can be seen in that little historical note, if I do say so myself ;)). If we go back to when ths region was part of New Mexico territory, the shared history increases to 160 years for portions and 157 years for other portions (formation of most fo the territory in 1850 and Gadsen purchase in 1853).

If we go back to the territory days for Maine, its shared history with Nova Scotia/New Brunswick gets decreased to 163 years for portions of it (From 1620 to the end of the Revolutionary war) and 195 years for other portions due to the shifts in the geo-political boundaries between those regions that occured in the interim.

I point all this historical stuff out to show that the political boundaries are, at best, poor determining factors when discussing "nations", especially considering the fact that nations are defined by the commonalities of the people.
 
It would actually seem that we're a state without a nation which IMHO puts us in a very unique position within the world community and has probably played a huge roll in our success.

I'd go as far as saying we are a State with many Nations, and that this has played a huge roll in our success.
 
My point is (and always has been) that cultural nations aren't limited by geo-political boundaries.
.

All fine and good, but don't speak to the "parameters" put forth by this thread saying they weren't put there when in reality that's not true, you just disagree with the legitimacy of said parameters.
 
All fine and good, but don't speak to the "parameters" put forth by this thread saying they weren't put there when in reality that's not true, you just disagree with the legitimacy of said parameters.

My appologies then. My confusion is based on the inherent contradiction with this statement:

NATION as a political term, not nation in regards to the common vernacular of most Americans where its a synonym for both "state" and "country".

and then limiting the boundaries of the "nation" to those of the State and country.

You then went on to explain a difference between cultural and political Nations in post #6. Since then, the discussion between us has been pretty focused on the "cultural" nation aspect (which is not going to be defined by political boundaries, but instead by the commonalities between people, no?)

I guess I've just become confused as to what the parameters are because they seem to be contradictory to me.
 
My appologies then. My confusion is based on the inherent contradiction with this statement:

and then limiting the boundaries of the "nation" to those of the State and country.

You then went on to explain a difference between cultural and political Nations in post #6. Since then, the discussion between us has been pretty focused on the "cultural" nation aspect (which is not going to be defined by political boundaries, but instead by the commonalities between people, no?)

I guess I've just become confused as to what the parameters are because they seem to be contradictory to me.

The discussion has revolved around non-political nations because in regards to the political nation of the U.S. we mostly were in agreement. You're rarely going to see an ongoing conversation through 6 pages where one person is going "I view this" and the other person is going "I agree with you on that". The conversation hasn't verged away from a political nation because its not topic, but because that wasn't the point where we disagreed with each other.

Again, there is no inconsistancy. The inconsistancy is your disagreement with my assertion. Again, that's fine and dandy, but don't act like because you disagree with my assertion that it magically creates an inconsistancy that is unfallably true. There's nothing staying that its impossible nation can't be defined as focusing on the population within an individual geographical area. Simply because you do not wish to do that or find that the notion is not the best use of it doesn't mean that somehow the parameters are impossible nor not set.

Your last line sets it perfectly. You disagree with the parameters I made and their legitimacy, and therefore reject them, and therefore then confuse yourself because you're arguing against something using your own parameters under the assumption that since you rejected mine that I obviously must accept that and simply use yours.
 
The discussion has revolved around non-political nations because in regards to the political nation of the U.S. we mostly were in agreement. You're rarely going to see an ongoing conversation through 6 pages where one person is going "I view this" and the other person is going "I agree with you on that". The conversation hasn't verged away from a political nation because its not topic, but because that wasn't the point where we disagreed with each other.

Again, there is no inconsistancy. The inconsistancy is your disagreement with my assertion. Again, that's fine and dandy, but don't act like because you disagree with my assertion that it magically creates an inconsistancy that is unfallably true. There's nothing staying that its impossible nation can't be defined as focusing on the population within an individual geographical area. Simply because you do not wish to do that or find that the notion is not the best use of it doesn't mean that somehow the parameters are impossible nor not set.

Your last line sets it perfectly. You disagree with the parameters I made and their legitimacy, and therefore reject them, and therefore then confuse yourself because you're arguing against something using your own parameters under the assumption that since you rejected mine that I obviously must accept that and simply use yours.

I'm not sure I'm merely rejecting it, though.

I really can't see how it isn't contradictory to want to limit it to the borders of the State/country while also seeking to define nation as: "not nation in regards to the common vernacular ... where its a synonym for both "state" and "country".

In essence, it seems to me that the question is aksing "What kind of nation is our country, but I don't want nation to mean country."

Maybe I'm seeing it wrong though.
 
The question is not

"What kind of nation is our country, but I don't want nation to mean country.""

Its

"What kind of nation are the PEOPLE of our country, and by nation I mean the people not the geographical territory itself nor the government"
 
The question is not

"What kind of nation is our country, but I don't want nation to mean country.""

Its

"What kind of nation are the PEOPLE of our country, and by nation I mean the people not the geographical territory itself nor the government"

OK, I think I'm getting it. I've got to reiterate my previous comment regarding the fact that it would be far less confusing if it was worded as "Are Americans a Christian Nation".

But since we're talking about the people, I guess any way that we choose to describe the nation would also be applicable to describing the people, no?

As in: the American people are _________.

Whatever accurately fills in the blank is an appropriate description of the Nation in this context.

Then the question becomes:

"Would "The American people are Christians" be an accurate or inaccurate statement?"

I think it is innacurate because it excludes the American people who are not Chrsitians.
 
Last edited:
Why?

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

So how do you equate the two?

Please explain.

A nation of Christians is a Christain nation. The nation is the people. The nation is not the government or its structure. The "nation" is the people. just look at the "Cherokee Nation". Their "nation" was not a defined boundary or system of rules, it was the people.
 
A nation of Christians is a Christian nation. The nation is the people. The nation is not the government or its structure. The "nation" is the people. Just look at the "Cherokee Nation". Their "nation" was not a defined boundary or system of rules, it was the people.
I was thinking over my statement for a few minutes while I was away for 2 days...

I think my original statement of "a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation" was misleading.

What I was attempting to say by that is: "The US is not a Christian nation, but a nation with Christians in it".

In that statement, the distinction is, IMO, clear.

I can see how you would think my previous statement redundant/contradictory.

Further, after reading the intervening discussion between Tucker and Zyphlin, I would say that calling the US a nation might be stretching it.

However, in disagreement with Tucker, I think that a vague sense of "nationhood" exists for the US as a whole.

Perhaps not at the level he would consider a "nation", but...
 
It's a shame that so many Americans have little or no understanding of why we fought the American Revolutionary War. Crown rule at that time meant absolute tyranny under a Monarchy that was hostile to what was wholesome and necessary for the public good. The inhabitants of the original thirteen colonies were denied protection unless they agreed to relinquish the right of representation, which is something that many Americans take for granted. We enjoy a representative government, and in spite of it's faults and corruption, our legislative bodies do not exist under a threat of being dissolved for not being in agreement with a supreme ruler.

Fundamentalist Christians throughout the nation work hard through many different venues to try and convince us that the founding fathers intended to establish this country on “biblical principles”. History simply does not support this. It wasn't just about taxes, either. As the Declaration so aptly states, it was about being deprived of such things as the benefits of trial by jury, for taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms government without any input from the people. It was about the Crown suspending it’s own legislatures and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate in all cases whatsoever. It was about the ability of the Monarchy to wage war on it’s own citizens and, without reservation, to plunder our seas, ravage our coasts, burn our towns, and destroy the lives of our ancestors without any judicial or legislative regulation.

The list of charges levied toward the Monarchy, and specifically King George III, in the body of the Declaration of Independence are numerous and largely unknown by our own citizenry. The crimes against humanity that were committed by the Crown were egregious and many. But instead of recognizing the Declaration of Independence as an important document stating our insistence to individual freedom and a government of the people, by the people and for the people, it has been relegated by the religious right as a weapon to promote their desire to bring the United States to a form of government that is almost identical to the one we originally fought so hard to be free of.

The sole purpose of the Declaration was to “dissolve the political bands”, not to set up a religious nation. Its authority is based on the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, which is contrary to the biblical concept of the Theocracy that the Religious Right and people like Palin, Buchanan and the rest of the Tea Partiers would impose upon us.

A vast majority of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence were not bible-believing Christians and the document that governs our Nation, our Constitution, was specifically drafted as a secular document and very purposely begins with “We the people”. We are the only nation on the planet to have a completely secular constitution, and this is why it purposely does not contain any mention of God, especially Christianity. Its only references to religion are exclusionary and the very first amendment made to our constitution states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. In fact, the presidential oath of office, the only oath detailed in the Constitution, does not contain the phrase “so help me God” or any requirement to swear on a bible

The 1797 Treaty with Tripoli declares that “the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion” and was written under Washington’s presidency and approved by the Senate under John Adams. In fact, the author of the Declaration, Thomas Jefferson, was a Deist and vehemently opposed to orthodox Christianity, as well as the supernatural. The famous quote of Thomas Jefferson, which includes the phrase “a wall of separation between church and state” was part of a letter to the Danbury Baptists in 1802. They had asked President Jefferson to explain the First Amendment, to which he replied, “the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions”.

Our government has no right to promulgate religion. The Supreme and lower courts have used Jefferson’s “wall of separation” phrase repeatedly in major decisions upholding neutrality in matters of religion. In 1971, referencing the Lemon v. Kurtzman decision, the Supreme Court forged what is known as the “Three Part Lemon Test” to determine if a law is permissible under the First-Amendment religion clause.

1. A law must have a secular purpose.
2. It must have a primary effect which neither advances nor inhibits religion.
3. It must avoid excessive entanglement of church and state.

While I am at it, those billboards that are popping up all over the country that exclude “Under God” from a portion of the Pledge of Allegiance are very patriotic and true to the principles that our country was founded upon, which is contrary to the propaganda being distributed by the Religious Right, most of the GOP and just about all of the Tea Baggers. The United States of America is NOT "one nation under God", but one nation under a Constitution. The Declaration of Independence served an honorable purpose and paved the way for the drafting of our Constitution, which was immediately and specifically amended with the Bill of Rights to uphold individual and minority rights. The fact that a majority of our citizens are Christian does not make us a Christian nation and on constitutional matters there is no majority rule. The majority has no right to tyrannize the minority on matters such as race, gender, or religious belief or the lack of religious belief. The wisest policy is the constitutional one, and that is neutrality.

The Religious Right are behaving like petulant, spoiled children. Nobody is deprived of worship in America. Tax-exempt religious organizations are everywhere. The state has almost no say about private religious beliefs and practices. The Christian Fundamentalists are behaving just like the Monarchy was in the Revolutionary War days and they cannot even see it because they are blinded by their own ignorance. They seem to have forgotten that the “due process” 14th Amendment assures no public official from the governor all the way down to the public school employee may violate the human rights embodied in our Constitution. At every level, the government must respect the separation of church and state.

Those who believe that our laws are based on the Ten Commandments would do well to crack open a bible and see that the first four Commandments are religious edicts having nothing to do with law or ethical behavior. Only three (homicide, theft, and perjury) are relevant to current American law, and have existed in cultures long before the fictional character of Moses was invented. It’s ironic that during this recession if we honored the commandment against “coveting”, it would cause our entire economy to completely collapse.

Our secular laws are based on the secular humanist principle of “justice for all” and they provide protection against crimes that our secular government enforces through a secular criminal justice system. The religious fanatics are ignoring history, law and fairness in their efforts to turn America into the Christian nation that it never was. Fundamentalist Christians would like nothing more than to deny the constitutional freedoms that are guaranteed to all Americans, including non-Christian religious minorities and unbelievers. What they refuse to acknowledge is that history shows that only harm comes of uniting church and state. The actions of the collective Religious Right are mirroring the tyranny of 18th century British Monarchy. This only proves that ignorance of history results in it’s repetition.

America has never been a Christian nation. It was not founded on Christian or Biblical principles. The founding fathers were not all Christians. We are and must remain, at all costs, a free nation. Anne Gaylor, president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, points out: “There can be no religious freedom without the freedom to dissent.” As Americans, we must continue to uphold the principles of individual freedom that our country was founded upon. As Atheists, we must work against the real enemies of the state, those who would see our great Nation transformed into a Theocracy.

There is no room in our government for the arrogance of religion and the doctrine that a “chosen few” who walk some ridiculous “narrow path” are responsible for what this Nation is, nor that our problems have anything to do with a lack of religious belief by any of our Citizens. The blessings we enjoy as Americans do not come from an imaginary skydaddy, but from the guarantees that are set forth in our secular constitution, which was the outcome of our declaration of independence. We are a secular nation.
 
Last edited:
Well, that was masterfully written by Al Stefanelli. Save for the fact of his inability to seemingly understand that a nation is not defined by its government nor by its founders.

Do you have any, I don't know, ORIGINAL thought you'd like to add?
 
Zyphlin, those ARE my thoughts. I am Al Stefanelli. I am the author of those comments, the founder of the UAF (United Atheist Front) and am not in the habit of using someone else's words.

If you insist on a link to my own work, here are two that I pulled from:

http://alstefanelli.wordpress.com/2010/07/04/independence-day-is-not-a-religious-holiday/

http://www.examiner.com/x-57388-Birmingham-Atheism-Examiner~y2010m7d6-Independence-Day-Is-Not-A-Religious-Holiday

While I thank you for the compliments, I do have the ability to understand that a nation is not defined by it's government or it's founders. But our consititution assures us that we are not defined by the majority religious belief of our citizens, which makes us a secular nation. The point was to prove that we are not a Christian nation, but a nation that has Christian citizens, along with many other variations.

I've updated my signature to include my name in order to avoid any future questions about what I post being my original work, and I will include a link if it will help.
 
Last edited:
I've known Mr. Stefanelli for years. I invited him to this forum because I knew he'd have a lot to add, and he'd write it well.

Well, that was masterfully written by Al Stefanelli. Save for the fact of his inability to seemingly understand that a nation is not defined by its government nor by its founders.

Do you have any, I don't know, ORIGINAL thought you'd like to add?
 
I felt it necessary to post this.

fiscalini-purple-moon.jpg

Not sure why, though...
 
Zyphlin, those ARE my thoughts. I am Al Stefanelli. I am the author of those comments, the founder of the UAF (United Atheist Front) and am not in the habit of using someone else's words.

If you insist on a link to my own work, here are two that I pulled from:

Independence Day Is Not A Religious Holiday « Al Stefanelli

Independence Day is not a religious holiday

While I thank you for the compliments, I do have the ability to understand that a nation is not defined by it's government or it's founders. But our consititution assures us that we are not defined by the majority religious belief of our citizens, which makes us a secular nation. The point was to prove that we are not a Christian nation, but a nation that has Christian citizens, along with many other variations.

I've updated my signature to include my name in order to avoid any future questions about what I post being my original work, and I will include a link if it will help.

Thank you for the clarification. My apologizes for the suggestion previously then concerning the work. Its nice to see for once such a situation happens and it actually IS the persons own words ;)

In regards to your further explanation regarding nations, I'd suggest reading through the thread, you may find some interesting discussion on both sides of what you're discussing. I've come to the general belief over time that the notion of suggesting that we're a heavily christian nation, or a nation made up primarily of christians, or a predominantly christian nation, would be better descriptions than suggesting we are "A christian nation". However I would contend that the constitution is relatively meaningless in regards to this, as the constitution is specifically a document regarding the rules of GOVERNMENT and would thus have little affect in control what kind of nation the PEOPLE are. The DOI however would have more substance to it.
 
I've known Mr. Stefanelli for years. I invited him to this forum because I knew he'd have a lot to add, and he'd write it well.

His post was well reasoned, extensive, and well thought out. A lot of times in the past when that happens with someone with under 5 posts its copied and pasted from somewhere else on the net. Its nice to see this time it came from the actual original speaker. :)
 
The sole purpose of the Declaration was to “dissolve the political bands”, not to set up a religious nation. Its authority is based on the idea that “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed”, which is contrary to the biblical concept of the Theocracy that the Religious Right and people like Palin, Buchanan and the rest of the Tea Partiers would impose upon us.

As if the religious left is any better. Liberation theology is the black equivalent of Christian Identity and is just as (if not more) dangerous to individual liberty as the evangelicals.
 
I was thinking over my statement for a few minutes while I was away for 2 days...

I think my original statement of "a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation" was misleading.

What I was attempting to say by that is: "The US is not a Christian nation, but a nation with Christians in it".

In that statement, the distinction is, IMO, clear.

I can see how you would think my previous statement redundant/contradictory.

Further, after reading the intervening discussion between Tucker and Zyphlin, I would say that calling the US a nation might be stretching it.

However, in disagreement with Tucker, I think that a vague sense of "nationhood" exists for the US as a whole.

Perhaps not at the level he would consider a "nation", but...

Clarified and thanks... I think that the issue for us all lies in he dual meaning of "nation". It is generally referred to as the United States as a country. Nation. Country. I think that a "country" is the government, it's people and the borders, language and culture. A "nation" is the people to me and especially within the parameters of this conversation. I understand what you are saying and thanks for sharing your point of view.

Bodi
 
Back
Top Bottom