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 historia in post #7]

Okay, but that's just punting a bit on the definition

I do not know what you mean by "punting a bit on the definition". What I do know is, one is not a Christian nationalist simply by loving the nation and being a Christian. One is not a Christian nationalist simply because they would like to see Christian values reflected in our system. Christian nationalists are those whose aim it is to have the federal government to declare this a Christian nation. These folks have been at this for over 5 decades, in what has been called the "culture wars" and they are getting their behinds handed to them on a silver platter, and they have had enough. In other words, they have attempted to accomplish what it is they want through the democratic process, but this is not working out for them, and now they intend to take matters in their own hands, and they are not about to let democracy, the Constitution, nor the rule of law get in their way. These folks have no interest in governing, but rather intend to rule, and reign.

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. The only way this can occur is for democracy, and the Constitution to be done away with, and this is exactly what these Christian nationalists who now hold power intend to do. I mean, all you have to do is to read "Project 2025" in order to know this to be the case. Seriously! Project 2025 was created by the Heritage Foundation, which is a Christian organization, and they spell it out for you, and Trump is going by the script.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #4]

What do you see with Islam?

"Death and destruction!!!!!!!!!!

What do you see with Atheist?

Ignorance!!!!!!!!!!!

What do I see in your reply?

Broad-brushing!!!!!!!!!!

Broad-brushing: Okay! Let's test your theory. I'll keep my response short; if you have any questions, ask.

Islam spread as a social system, a political system, and a religious system, and spread by force of arms. That was its philosophy in the beginning, and it is still the philosophy of Islam today. Most terror groups throughout the world are either Islamic or drug cartels. Hmmm, i guess I can throw Putin into the mix.

After Muhammad's death, Islam continued to flourish under the leadership of Muhammad's companions. The first Caliph (successor to the Prophet) was his father-in-law and long-time friend, Abu Bakr. In his two years of leadership, Abu Bakr consolidated Islamic influence over the entire Arabian Peninsula.

The second caliph was Umar. He was in power from 634 to 644 A.D. Under Umar, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Persia were added to the growing list of Islamic subjects. Others followed, and threats and war expanded the borders of Islam. Under the leadership of the Kalifahs, Islam spread into Europe, Africa, and Asia. The caliphate lasted centuries, shifting from one dynasty to another, but always claiming the religious right to lead.

Eventually, the caliphate evolved into the Ottoman Empire, which lasted until the early 20th century. Islamist war with the Jews, with Christians, and among themselves.

Concerning Atheist: Anyone that buys into the idea that nothing created something is ------------------------ I'll let you finish the sentence.

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to historia in post #7]


I thought about one more thing I would like to add here. Since Donald Trump has been elected, he has put Musk in charge of what he calls DOGE, and Musk has fired 10's of thousands of federal workers. Well, it just so happens that "Project 2025" which was published months before the election, just so happens to mention the firing of 10's of thousands of federal employees. Moreover, Project 2025 talks about replacing these fired employees with loyalists to Trump and the cause. In fact, the authors of Project 2025 told us months before the election that they had already been in the process of recruiting and training the replacements who would be loyal the next conservative president. What DOGE is doing is to create a lot of division confusion, and anger even in heavy republican districts.

Let us add to this the fact that Trump is throwing our economy into the tank, as it implements these tariffs. The markets are crashing. Now let us consider the fact that we had 4 U.S. soldiers who died in Lithuania and many citizens of Lithuania along with soldiers of Lithuania, and the president of Lithuania came out and paid their respects to these American soldiers who died in their country as their remains were transported to the airport for the return to the U.S. In fact, the president of Lithuania made a speech in honor of these American soldiers.

Now, where in the world was Trump as the markets crashed, and these soldiers returned? Well, he was playing golf and was far too busy to concern himself with the markets, and to represent the U.S. as its president, to pay respects to these returning soldiers. The thing we need to understand is, Trump has to know his actions are unpopular, and he has to know the damage they are creating, and yet it does not seem to matter to him, nor the Christian nationalists. Why, and how is this?

Well, could it be the fact that Trump, and the Christian nationalists who have taken over the republican party understand the aim is to do away with democracy, along with overthrowing the Constitution, and the rule of law? Because you see, if this is what they aim to do, then they could really not care any less of how popular their actions are, since they are well aware that the destruction of democracy is not going to be very popular.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #12]

Islam spread as a social system, a political system, and a religious system, and spread by force of arms. That was its philosophy in the beginning, and it is still the philosophy of Islam today. Most terror groups throughout the world are either Islamic or drug cartels. Hmmm, i guess I can throw Putin into the mix.

After Muhammad's death, Islam continued to flourish under the leadership of Muhammad's companions. The first Caliph (successor to the Prophet) was his father-in-law and long-time friend, Abu Bakr. In his two years of leadership, Abu Bakr consolidated Islamic influence over the entire Arabian Peninsula.

The second caliph was Umar. He was in power from 634 to 644 A.D. Under Umar, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Persia were added to the growing list of Islamic subjects. Others followed, and threats and war expanded the borders of Islam. Under the leadership of the Kalifahs, Islam spread into Europe, Africa, and Asia. The caliphate lasted centuries, shifting from one dynasty to another, but always claiming the religious right to lead.

Eventually, the caliphate evolved into the Ottoman Empire, which lasted until the early 20th century. Islamist war with the Jews, with Christians, and among themselves.

And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.
(Deuteronomy 3:6)

They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
(Joshua 6:21)

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
(1 Samuel 15:3)

I guess terrorism is subjective.

Concerning Atheist: Anyone that buys into the idea that nothing created something is ------------------------ I'll let you finish the sentence.

I'm not debating your point on atheism, but simply broad-brushing atheists as "ignorant" indicates an unwillingness to seriously engage with them.

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #12]

Islam spread as a social system, a political system, and a religious system, and spread by force of arms. That was its philosophy in the beginning, and it is still the philosophy of Islam today. Most terror groups throughout the world are either Islamic or drug cartels. Hmmm, i guess I can throw Putin into the mix.

After Muhammad's death, Islam continued to flourish under the leadership of Muhammad's companions. The first Caliph (successor to the Prophet) was his father-in-law and long-time friend, Abu Bakr. In his two years of leadership, Abu Bakr consolidated Islamic influence over the entire Arabian Peninsula.

The second caliph was Umar. He was in power from 634 to 644 A.D. Under Umar, Syria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Persia were added to the growing list of Islamic subjects. Others followed, and threats and war expanded the borders of Islam. Under the leadership of the Kalifahs, Islam spread into Europe, Africa, and Asia. The caliphate lasted centuries, shifting from one dynasty to another, but always claiming the religious right to lead.

Eventually, the caliphate evolved into the Ottoman Empire, which lasted until the early 20th century. Islamist war with the Jews, with Christians, and among themselves.

And we utterly destroyed them, as we did unto Sihon king of Heshbon, utterly destroying the men, women, and children, of every city.
(Deuteronomy 3:6)

They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
(Joshua 6:21)

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”
(1 Samuel 15:3)

I guess terrorism is subjective.

Concerning Atheist: Anyone that buys into the idea that nothing created something is ------------------------ I'll let you finish the sentence.

I'm not debating your point on atheism, but simply broad-brushing atheists as "ignorant" indicates an unwillingness to seriously engage with them.

Athetotheist, thanks for your comments. You make a few interesting points but leave out a great deal of details. In verse 1 of Deuteronomy 3, you will notice that Og, the king of Bashan, attacked Israel without provocation. He may have attacked them for one of two reasons: he considered them a dangerous neighbor, or he sought revenge for the overthrow of his friends and allies. However, the point is, he attacked them. And because he attacked them, the LORD gave their land to the Israelites. I find that a very reasonable end to this matter.

Concerning Joshua 6:21, you have to be a Christian to understand that the Jews moved on the word of their leader, that being the LORD God. The LORD spoke through his chosen leaders; in this case, it was Joshua. The land of Canaan had been promised to the Jews through the Abrahamic covenant four hundred and forty years before (Exodus 12:40.) When Moses died and Joshua was made their leader, the time for the LORD to make good his promise to his people had come. Jericho was the gate that had to be opened for Israel to enter their promised land. It had to be taken by force because the people of Cannan were fierce and murderous.

It was the same with the Amalek's who were the enemies of Israel. Five hundred years had passed since their destruction had been announced. The Amalek's were plunderers and a great danger to the Jews, so they had to be wiped out.

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.

Concerning atheists, I enjoy a good conversation as long as they remain open-minded. Most are not because they have closed their mind to most everything in the Bible, especially the opening chapters of Genesis 1.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #15]

Athetotheist, thanks for your comments. You make a few interesting points but leave out a great deal of details. In verse 1 of Deuteronomy 3, you will notice that Og, the king of Bashan, attacked Israel without provocation. He may have attacked them for one of two reasons: he considered them a dangerous neighbor, or he sought revenge for the overthrow of his friends and allies. However, the point is, he attacked them. And because he attacked them, the LORD gave their land to the Israelites. I find that a very reasonable end to this matter.

Did the children of Bashan attack the Israelites without provocation? It seems that there really is a difference between being pro-life and just being pro-birth.

The land of Canaan had been promised to the Jews through the Abrahamic covenant four hundred and forty years before (Exodus 12:40.)

No one seems to have informed the Canaanites of that.

It was the same with the Amalek's who were the enemies of Israel. Five hundred years had passed since their destruction had been announced. The Amalek's were plunderers and a great danger to the Jews, so they had to be wiped out.

.....which raises a question. If Jehovah decided to destroy the Amalekites for waylaying the Israelites as they went from Egypt, why would it take him five hundred years to get around to it?

For that matter, why should he have to do it at all? Are we supposed to believe that Jehovah miraculously saved the Israelites from the pursuing Egyptians by parting the Red Sea and then lead them with a column of cloud by day and a column of fire by night, but couldn't guard their rear from the Amalekites? Why couldn't he just open the earth to swallow up the attacking Amalekites as he would with Korah in Numbers 16?

See how problematic it becomes when you examine the details? National leaders may try to rationalize infanticide in dealing with enemies, but an omnipotent deity doesn't have such an excuse.

Concerning atheists, I enjoy a good conversation as long as they remain open-minded. Most are not because they have closed their mind to most everything in the Bible, especially the opening chapters of Genesis 1.

That's the part with the talking snake. And the man and woman who, for some reason, felt shame upon realizing that they were naked when they had been created naked and everything created was good.

Again, see how problematic it becomes when you examine the details?

[placebofactor]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #15]

Athetotheist, thanks for your comments. You make a few interesting points but leave out a great deal of details. In verse 1 of Deuteronomy 3, you will notice that Og, the king of Bashan, attacked Israel without provocation. He may have attacked them for one of two reasons: he considered them a dangerous neighbor, or he sought revenge for the overthrow of his friends and allies. However, the point is, he attacked them. And because he attacked them, the LORD gave their land to the Israelites. I find that a very reasonable end to this matter.

Did the children of Bashan attack the Israelites without provocation? It seems that there really is a difference between being pro-life and just being pro-birth.

The land of Canaan had been promised to the Jews through the Abrahamic covenant four hundred and forty years before (Exodus 12:40.)

No one seems to have informed the Canaanites of that.

It was the same with the Amalek's who were the enemies of Israel. Five hundred years had passed since their destruction had been announced. The Amalek's were plunderers and a great danger to the Jews, so they had to be wiped out.

.....which raises a question. If Jehovah decided to destroy the Amalekites for waylaying the Israelites as they went from Egypt, why would it take him five hundred years to get around to it?

For that matter, why should he have to do it at all? Are we supposed to believe that Jehovah miraculously saved the Israelites from the pursuing Egyptians by parting the Red Sea and then lead them with a column of cloud by day and a column of fire by night, but couldn't guard their rear from the Amalekites? Why couldn't he just open the earth to swallow up the attacking Amalekites as he would with Korah in Numbers 16?

See how problematic it becomes when you examine the details? National leaders may try to rationalize infanticide in dealing with enemies, but an omnipotent deity doesn't have such an excuse.

Concerning atheists, I enjoy a good conversation as long as they remain open-minded. Most are not because they have closed their mind to most everything in the Bible, especially the opening chapters of Genesis 1.

That's the part with the talking snake. And the man and woman who, for some reason, felt shame upon realizing that they were naked when they had been created naked and everything created was good.

Again, see how problematic it becomes when you examine the details?

God's patience does have an end, and when that end is reached, their destruction is the final determination. The Canaanites, Basanites, and the rest of the sons of Ham all knew the LORD but willfully decided to reject his authority.

Athetotheist, I know nothing about the things you believe in, but if a person does not believe that God exists, I can understand your position. Because we all live in the same world, there has to be one set of rules for all men, and therefore, one ruler. If this situation did not exist, then all 7 billion people on earth could make up their own rules and do as they please, whenever they please.

If your dog urinates on my lawn, then I would have the right to shoot him, and because that would make you angry, you shoot me, and my brother shoots you, and there would be no rule of law because law would not exist without one God and one set of rules.

Now because God does exist, rules have been established, no theft, no rape, no murder, no adultery etc. When a nation defies these laws, men like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and their people decide to follow their lead and not the LORD's commandments, their end is also written in God's law. "And behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him."

[bjs1]

[Replying to historia in post #9]

They want it to be officially Christian in government policy.

Which means what, exactly?

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

I tend to agree with Historia that a clearer definition of “Christian nationalist” would be helpful.

To give one example, the opening post called Vance a Christian Nationalist. (I assume that Vance is the subject of the sentence “It is also a fact that Trump named a Christian nationalist to be his vice president.” It would be hard to imagine that you mean Pence, given the way he put his safety at risk to protect democratic principles.)

What specific policies has Vance advanced during his time in the Senate or as Vice President that are “based on Christian doctrine rather than on democratic principles”?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to historia in post #9]

They want it to be officially Christian in government policy.

Which means what, exactly?

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

I tend to agree with Historia that a clearer definition of “Christian nationalist” would be helpful.

To give one example, the opening post called Vance a Christian Nationalist. (I assume that Vance is the subject of the sentence “It is also a fact that Trump named a Christian nationalist to be his vice president.” It would be hard to imagine that you mean Pence, given the way he put his safety at risk to protect democratic principles.)

What specific policies has Vance advanced during his time in the Senate or as Vice President that are “based on Christian doctrine rather than on democratic principles”?

You would have to address that with the author of the opening post, who isn't me.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to placebofactor in post #17]


Thus says the Lord of hosts, “I will punish the Amalekites for what they did in opposing the Israelites when they came up out of Egypt.
(1 Samuel 15:2)

If that was the reason for the punishment, shouldn't it have been meted out when it happened rather than centuries later? Might that not have prevented further aggression?

I know nothing about the things you believe in, but if a person does not believe that God exists, I can understand your position.

Believing in God doesn't mean having to believe that God engages in irrational and unjust behavior.

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."
---Galileo

If your dog urinates on my lawn, then I would have the right to shoot him, and because that would make you angry, you shoot me, and my brother shoots you, and there would be no rule of law because law would not exist without one God and one set of rules.

.....except that wars are waged over which God that is and which rules are his.

The Golden Rule is expressed in every major religion. As long as it's followed, why should only one of them have to be right?

Now because God does exist, rules have been established, no theft, no rape, no murder, no adultery etc. When a nation defies these laws, men like Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Pol Pot, and their people decide to follow their lead and not the LORD's commandments, their end is also written in God's law. "And behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him."

Again, an omnipotent deity shouldn't have to be conveniently limited to the practical measures of human society. When an army attacks a city its military hardware may cause a lot of destruction and even death, but a deity who is supposedly able to part waters and open the earth at will can't be given as much moral leeway. If a deity is going to be ascribed omnipotence and perfect justice, mortals have a natural right to expect that deity to exercise the former within the confines of the latter. And if such a deity doesn't exercise power thus, what makes that deity more worthy of reverence than any other?