Is America a Christian Nation?

To me it looks like those who say church and state should be kept separate, as evidenced by the examples I gave, are in reality doing exactly what Jefferson predicted, actually institutionalizing their own beliefs in law, and infringing on the religious freedoms of those they disagree with. If it is wrong to institutionalize one side's beliefs and force them on others, it should be for the other side also.

quote:

---

Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;
That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,

​

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

​

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

​

That even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the Ministry those temporary rewards, which, proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

---

Virginia statute for religious freedom - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation scienceEdited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Religious freedom doesn't entail freedom to play dog-in-the-manger. A flat-Earth sect shouldn't stop state schools from buying globes, or stop the Navy from buying and using navigation systems based on spherical geometry. Nor does the existence of Jehovah's Witnesses prevent them from spending money on blood transfusions, nor the existence of Scientologists prevent them from offering psychiatric treatment to soldiers with PTSD. The existence of white supremacist churches doesn't stop people from teaching about black role models nor render Martin Luther King Day unconstitutional. Pacifist religious groups such as the Quakers do not entail that we should abolish the Army. If there are still any Christians left who pay any attention to the strictures in the Bible against usury, that wouldn't stop the government from borrowing or lending money at interest. And if a cult arose that claimed that two twos were five, schools would not have to abandon teaching the multiplication table.The government is free to act for secular purposes, such as making sure that the Navy can get their ships from point A to point B, without reference to this or that religious belief. If they couldn't, then that would be an entanglement of church with state; moreover, it would be stupid.This does not leave religious people entirely without recourse --- for example, if Quakers could persuade enough people to share their views, we could vote to abolish the Army. But the First Amendment does not oblige us to abolish it right now out of deference to their religion.(And since there were Quakers back when the USA was founded, and we had an army even back then, it is plain that the Founders agreed with my interpretation of the First Amendment in this respect at least.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

None of which appears similar to what I mentioned. Unlike with claims of a flat earth, it's not as easy to prove macroevolution as looking at the horizon, or taking a plane trip around the world. Abortion is very obviously murder in certain cases - unlike blood transfusions - such as those that occur after the 21st week (some 40,000 abortions every year), the same time that children can be born prematurely and live. Nor is the gay rights movement similar to the civil rights movement since they have the right to vote already and already have the same rights as everyone else - what they want is to change the meaning of what rights are.You are discussing cults and minorities, but in this case, 66% of Americans say Young Earth Creationism is definitely true or probably true, 59% support outlawing abortion in any or most circumstances, and 48% oppose same-sex marriage. Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent Design | Gallup Historical Trends
Abortion | Gallup Historical Trends
Gay and Lesbian Rights | Gallup Historical Trends

d.p.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

It is --- they're not allowed to use taxpayers' money to teach their religious doctrines either. Of course, they don't want to.I think you're playing about a bit with words like "belief" and "opinion" here. Jefferson clearly thought that one shouldn't be compelled to pay for a religion one does not believe in. This is different from saying that one should not be compelled to pay for a government program that one does not believe in. In a democracy, such things are going to happen. For example, people who opposed the war with Iraq still had to pay for it. I must have missed the clamor of fundamentalists explaining that this contravened the spirit of the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom --- or if they made any mention of it, it must have been drowned out by the din they made rattling their sabres.

Except that Jefferson specifically said "opinions and modes of thinkings" were being used to "[assume] dominion over the faith of others". This was used to maintain false religions over the world and for all time. He said that it was wrong to force others to contribute money for opinions they don't believe.

quote:

---

That the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time;

​

That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical;

---

By that definition, if opinions and modes of thinking imposed on others include Evolution, Homosexuality, and Abortion, they might as well be for all intents and purposes religions. They are opinions and modes of thinking imposed on the faith of others.As for conservatives and the Virginia Statute, I don't think I've met anyone before who knew about the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom that I hadn't already told. I came across it and have been mentioning it myself.I am a fundamentalist, and I've been opposing the Iraq War since 2004. I say so on my CreationWiki page, and I can prove it per my 2004 posting history at RenewAmerica's forums. I was criticizing both Bush and Obama at the time and my posting history proves it, as well as the fact that I voted for Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party. I've never voted anything but 3rd party in a presidential general election.User:Jzyehoshua - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Minuteman Message Board • Information

But the line you're taking is not one that can be taken by the government.Don't you see that if they started making distinctions, the First Amendment would have gone completely up the spout? They'd have to start saying: "OK, we don't have to pander to this church (on inter-racial marriage) but we do have to pander to this other more favored church (on gay marriage). We don't have to accommodate the to the Quakers, who tell us that war is clearly murder, but we must accommodate the Catholics who say the same thing about abortion. The geoplanarians are a small sect, we can draw up a school curriculum without reference to them; but there are many creationists, so we can't teach anything that they find offensive. Moreover, I personally think that the views of geoplanarians are clearly wrong, whereas I being but a simple Supreme Court Justice find it harder to refute creationists. Now, how about the geocentrists? How stupid do I think they are, and how many of them are there?"Now, you as a private individual can dismiss certain religious beliefs because the minority that holds them is a small one, or because you find those beliefs silly and easy to refute. That's your perfect right.But we can't put the government in the business of deciding that, and establishing that for First Amendment purposes some churches are important churches such that taxpayers' money should never be spent in any way that might grieve or upset their adherents, whereas other churches are just silly little cults that no-one needs to bother about.Now of course the elected officials can pander to this or that church to some extent, and may indeed do so by counting heads. Hence, some churches have more political clout than others. But we can't have some churches having a different constitutional position based on how large they are or whether we think they're silly.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

That hardly seems to mean anything. How does someone impose a homosexual opinion on your faith? So ... do you deserve a tax rebate?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

I don't think there's a need to recognize any church or organization in general by government. We need to avoid letting any organization, be it religious, scientific, or political, have major influence in government decision-making.The solution I would like is for all to be able to voice their religious, political, and scientific opinions in the sphere of politics and government regardless so long as these don't call for silencing inalienable liberties like right to life, right to vote, or right to free speech of other demographics.We should simply put issues like abortion or homosexuality or evolution to a vote and let the people decide. There's no need to distinguish this group or that group. Just let it be an up-or-down majority vote. Let all people voice their opinions on the issues and trust the most persuasive, reasonable arguments will be adopted by the majority, simple as that.While an organization can usurp government as a dictatorship, because it involves power in the hands of a few, it is far more difficult to do so with a direct democracy where organizations are not given this power but all may vote on an issue. What I'd like to see is the top political issues put on the ballot and have people vote on how to decide them each election. Same with a few of the top bills. The system would be tough to set up but could definitely be done if people can vote constantly on something as trivial as American Idol.We shouldn't be upholding organizations through government at all. But we are of necessity going to have to adopt the VIEWS of organizations. Either Pro-Life or Pro-Choice will be the law, e.g. Or at least somewhere on the scale which will probably be supported by one side and not the other. In other words, we can have the issues of Evolution or Abortion or Marriage voted on by the people without instituting a specific organization in law, because organizations have nothing to do with this, but rather the will of the people themselves.

I already gave the example of having homosexual role models taught to grade schoolers. Using one's own public tax dollars to teach that homosexuality is right to one's children would seem to fit that description. Another example would be the homosexual hate crimes laws that are allowing pastors to be sued for not performing gay weddings, photographers for not photographing gay weddings, and doctors for not performing in vitro fertilization on lesbian couples. Those are all cases of infringing on the religious freedoms of others. I think our tax code is way too complicated and needs to be simplified. We should just figure out what the 10-15 most effective Income Tax questions are for determining cumulative national wealth, adopt those, and toss the rest. I'm not sure we even need to ask marriage status for tax purposes. Concerning taxes on business, I'd like to see tax rebates for companies that hire more U.S. workers in relation to company earnings so companies are incentivized to hire U.S. workers maximally rather than replacing them with overseas workers, illegal immigrants, or automation.

Hi JzyehoshuaJust a small quibble or two: (1) The mention of god was added to the original pledge, as was mention of America:

quote:

---

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in August 1892 by the socialist minister Francis Bellamy (1855-1931). It was originally published in The Youth's Companion on September 8, 1892. Bellamy had hoped that the pledge would be used by citizens in any country.

​

In its original form it read:

​

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

​

Shortly thereafter, the pledge was begun with the right hand over the heart, and after reciting "to the Flag," the arm was extended toward the Flag, palm-down.

---

Isn't that like a fascist salute?

quote:

---

The Pledge of Allegiance, A Short History

​

His original Pledge read as follows: 'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]

---

Curiously I see nothing wrong with the original wording, except the omission of equality ... if you need a pledge ...(2) The founding fathers did not need a pledge. Pledges are needed by people that don't like independent thinking, imho.abe ...I knew this had been discussed before and a little searching found: [qs]Message 19 of the constitutionality of using public funds to promote religion thread:This does not alter the fact that they supported a government of the people by the people for the peopleRead "The Christian Nation Myth" by Farrel Till
The Christian Nation Myth » Internet InfidelsNote in particular that the constitutional convention voted on whether to include god in the constitution and that it was defeated.Read how Jefferson and Washington and many other founders -- specifically the ones that were the movers and shakers of creating this country -- were not christian or were christian and had no problem with a separation between government by people and religions of all stripes.[/quote]Another good read.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : abe info

Well, I kinda liked the constitutional republic we have. But my best wishes on your endeavor to abolish it.

And where did they actually occur? Could I see some specific instances? Only I know what hate crime legislation actually is, so I am doubtful of your claims. You missed my point. I mean: if you were opposed to the war, does that mean that you shouldn't have to pay for it?

Precisely like one - a retired couple I knew when I was a kid told me about how the hand signals changed when they were in school in the 30's.Also, Jz, I, along with my age cohort in the US, had to relearn the pledge with "under God" added in 2nd grade. The trauma of having to do so led us to become the first generation of godless atheistic commie hippies when we got up to our teens......

And because we had to relearn the pledge already, we should be exempt for the next round. However, "Play Ball" should never be removed from the National Anthem.