Do We Want Our Government to Proclaim This a Christian Nation?

[Realworldjack]

It is a fact which cannot be denied that Donald Trump attempted to overthrow the 2020 election. We can know this by the fact that Trump stood on the podium on Jan. 6th and told the gathered crowd that "Pence did not have the courage to do what needed to be done". What was it that Trump wanted Pence to do which he did not have the courage to do? We all know, because it is a demonstratable fact that it was for Pence to forgo the election results. Since we know this to be the case, then we can know that this is exactly what had been planned out.

We also know for a fact that in 2016 that Trump stated that "the only way he could lose, was if the election was rigged", and he also made the same statement in 2020. No one, and I mean NO ONE can defend such a statement. No one who is a leader would ever make such a statement. I mean, even if you knew beyond doubt that some sort of fraud was going on, a leader would never want to cause the public to lose faith in the process. Rather, a true leader would have transferred power peacefully, and then went through the process of the courts to demonstrate the case, and then in the end this leader could say, "yes there was fraud involved but as you can see, our system worked, and the fraud was exposed". However, what we have is one announcing both times that the only way he could lose is by fraud, and after four years we still have no evidence of the fraud. The point is, only one who is wanting to be rid of democracy, would ever attempt to convince his country that the system is not working.

Another thing we can all know for a fact is that it was Christians who were behind the gathering of the crowd on Jan. 6th. We also know there are Christians now who embrace the label of "Christian nationalists". Many folks believe that "Christian nationalism" is a hard term to define, because folks seem to have different definitions of what it means to be a "Christian nationalist". However, the term is not hard to define at all. A "Christian nationalist" is one who wants the government of the United States to declare this nation to be a Christian nation. I cannot imagine anyone at all claiming to be a "Christian nationalist" who does not have this aim.

It is also a fact that Trump named a Christian nationalist to be his vice president. Moreover, Trump has named a number of "Christian nationalists" to his cabinet. As we continue, the speaker of the house is a self-proclaimed Christian nationalist. This means, the next 2 men in line to take over as president if something were to happen to Trump would be self-proclaimed Christian nationalists.

With all the above being fact, the question for debate is, how in the world can we imagine that all these Christian nationalists who are now in power, who want this to be a Christian nation, would want to continue in a democracy, when democracy is preventing what it is they aim to accomplish?

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #15]

See how simple it is when you examine the details. I served in the Marines, and I believe in justice as well as mercy. But we both understand that some individuals and nations who plunder, rape and murder the weak and helpless for the sheer pleasure of doing so, these people do not deserve to live, not in my estimation. Just finished reading a book on the "Rape of Cambodia" and the butcher Pol Pot who slaughtered 1/2 of his people. He made 10-year-old children murders. Men like him, his followers, and those who support them need to be wiped out. Why? Because if you don't, they will return and commit the same crimes over and over again. No mercy because they give no mercy. I call it justice.

First, allow me to be sure to thank you for your service to this nation.

Next, I am not going to agree or disagree with any of your points above. What I will say is, even if all your above points are correct, and the United States deems it necessary to become involved, then it cannot be based upon religious reasons, because the Constitution ensures that the federal government can never be involved in promoting any religion at all. The thing is, it is not religion which unites us as Americans. What unites us as Americans is freedom, and the Constitution. So then, we can become involved in order to protect freedom, and or the Constitution, but we cannot become involved based upon religion.

[historia]

They want government decisions based on Christian doctrine rather than on democratic principles.

But what does that man, exactly? They want government decisions based on, say, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection?

[historia]

These folks have no interest in governing, but rather intend to rule, and reign.

Who are "these folks"? Are you saying, for example, that J. D. Vance and Mike Johnson are intending to "do away with democracy and the Constitution"?

What does it mean for the United States to be a "Christian nation"?

The same exact thing is means for Iran to be a Muslim nation. Islam rules and reigns in this nation, and no one in the nation can hold any sort of office if they are not Muslim. In the same way, the Christian nationalists intend Christianity to rule and reign in the U.S. and only Christians will be allowed to hold public office.

I'm not sure that Islamic Iran provides an "exact" analogy, though, since Islamic tradition tends to see law (Sharia) and religion as closely intertwined. Christianity -- especially western Christianity, thanks to Augustine -- on the other hand, sees a distinction between the Church and the "secular." It's not an accident Europe developed modern, secular states, even though Anglo-American and European laws have, of course, incorporated many Christian values.

[Athetotheist]

They want government decisions based on Christian doctrine rather than on democratic principles.

But what does that man, exactly? They want government decisions based on, say, the Virgin Birth or the Resurrection?

They want government decisions based on belief in the virgin birth and the resurrection.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #15]

See how simple it is when you examine the details. I served in the Marines, and I believe in justice as well as mercy. But we both understand that some individuals and nations who plunder, rape and murder the weak and helpless for the sheer pleasure of doing so, these people do not deserve to live, not in my estimation. Just finished reading a book on the "Rape of Cambodia" and the butcher Pol Pot who slaughtered 1/2 of his people. He made 10-year-old children murders. Men like him, his followers, and those who support them need to be wiped out. Why? Because if you don't, they will return and commit the same crimes over and over again. No mercy because they give no mercy. I call it justice.

First, allow me to be sure to thank you for your service to this nation.

Next, I am not going to agree or disagree with any of your points above. What I will say is, even if all your above points are correct, and the United States deems it necessary to become involved, then it cannot be based upon religious reasons, because the Constitution ensures that the federal government can never be involved in promoting any religion at all. The thing is, it is not religion which unites us as Americans. What unites us as Americans is freedom, and the Constitution. So then, we can become involved in order to protect freedom, and or the Constitution, but we cannot become involved based upon religion.

Remember, freedom is not free. Freedom has to be fought for, and protected when you have it. The first settlers in America brought their Bibles with them, and the founding fathers, for the most part, were Christians.

If I were to run for office, let's say in the House of Representatives, and won, how in the world could anyone expect me to leave my Christian faith behind? My faith is who I am. When a person walks through the doors of the House or Senate, their faith goes with them, regardless of the religion or non-religion they claim to stand on. Muslim politicians will always vote against and stand against Jewish or Christian values, it's obvious today. Muslim politicians support Ivy League colleges that protest Jews, and their protests are getting more violent.

Atheists will always attempt to cram down the throats of Christians their pagan values of homosexuality, abortion, and all their WOKE nonsense. Would I stand against these forms of corruption as a politician, Christian, or just a voter? Yes, I would because these are the things that have brought down many empires. True Christianity has a foundation based on love and justice, not hate or the sword.

One more point: The phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers saw nothing wrong with having religion in American culture. Here’s what the Constitution does state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #25]

The phrase "separation of church and state" appears nowhere in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers saw nothing wrong with having religion in American culture. Here’s what the Constitution does state: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Those who oppose separation use the "not-in-the-Constitution" argument a lot. Don't be fooled by it. The phrase, "no taxation without representation" isn't in the Constitution either. Does that make the principle of no taxation without representation unconstitutional? No.

There's a difference between religion in American culture and religion in American government. James Madison, widely hailed as the Father of the Constitution, understood that:
https://founders.archives.gov/documents ... 08-02-0163
(lengthy, but worth the read)

Thomas Jefferson also understood it, as he shows in explaining what we read in the 1st Amendment:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html