Posted on 09/24/2009 10:22:58 PM PDT by ReligiousLibertyTV
What would it mean if the United States were officially declared a “Christian Nation”? How would it affect you in your everyday life? Would you have increased opportunity to practice your faith more freely? Would the government use its power to make moral laws that line up with your Christian beliefs or would it favor the ‘Christian beliefs’ of your neighbors?
Our best example might come from a time when much of Europe was a “Christian Continent.” The Holy Roman Empire lasted from Emperor Otto’s coronation in 962 to 1806 when it was dissolved during the Napoleonic wars. For all intents and purposes it was considered the ultimate “Christian” political system.
The Empire was afraid what would happen if people began to compare the activities of its political and religious leaders with the Bible. There was tremendous power in the idea that a political leader could advance policies, not through debate, but by virtue that “God wants it this way, and if you disagree you are in opposition to God.” To put this in perspective, imagine that President Obama could win the healthcare debate by simply saying that “God wants it this way, and if you disagree you are in opposition to God.”
Around 1419, John Huss began to speak against some of the customs of the Church, and because the Empire and the Church were so closely aligned, they spent a lot of energy trying to silence the “heresy.” The Empire was threatened because if Huss won the debate, he would show that the Church could be challenged and if the Church could be challenged, then it threatened the Empire itself, which based its power on the idea that God considered the Empire to be correct on all issues.
When people heard what Huss was saying, they began to doubt their old idea of a unified corpus Christianum and consider that people did not have to agree on everything when it came to faith. A century later, in 1517, Martin Luther initiated the Reformation in an attempt to bring the Church around to his ideas. People ended up siding with Luther or against him along geographic lines and Germany was split along these lines from which it never fully recovered until the Empire dissolved.
Added to this was the fact that popes and emperors tended to distrust each other, and felt that they had to fight to remain in control of the situation.
Many people believe that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prevents the formation of a “state church” such as the Church of England. While there are good reasons to believe that this was intended to be much broader, let’s assume for the sake of argument that Congress would still be free to declare that Christianity is the official religion of the country and that our laws were supposed to mirror God’s law.
Christianity has struggled with issues of power and control since its inception. Throughout Jesus’ ministry, His disciples often asked Jesus, “Who is the greatest among us?”
They probably thought that Jesus would name John or Peter or Mathew and make this honored disciple a Vice President of the Kingdom. But Jesus turned their question upside down.
In Matthew 18 we read His answer. “Jesus called a little child and had him stand among them. And he said, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven” (NIV).
In recent months as I’ve read various calls for America to be declared a Christian nation, I’ve been surprised at some of the language used. Tom Snyder on World Net Daily said that the idea of separation of church and state is promoted by “theophobic atheists, neo-pagan fascists, radical liberals, socialists, Marxists, anti-Christian bigots, sexual perverts, Christophobic politicians and journalists, and other such people who wish to obliterate the European Christian foundation on which America was built.” See http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45069
Snyder concludes that, “separation of church and state does not mean separation between politics and religion or politics and the Bible. As Gary DeMar points out, there is a big difference between an ‘ecclesiocracy’ where the church rules society through religious leaders with preachers and priests as the government officials, and a ‘theocracy’ where God rules the outward behavior of all people through the civil government chosen by the people. Thus, the Founding Fathers did indeed establish a Christian theocracy, but they did not establish a Christian ecclesiocracy.”
But who will tell us how God would rule the “outward behavior of all people”? Would some people claim to be closer to God and that they could tell everybody else how to live out their faith in their everyday lives?
History tells us that it would not be a debate between Christians and atheists. If Christianity won predominance over every other religious system in the nation, it would be a debate between Baptists, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans, Catholics, Seventh-day Adventists, Pentacostals, and any other denomination you could name. Then it would be between the liberals and conservatives, and ultimately between conservatives or between liberals, the powerful – not the faithful – would control.
People interpret faith differently, and while most people think they believe the right thing, history tells us what to predict what would happen if one person’s right thing and the other person’s right thing were in disagreement. Anybody who has served on a church board can tell you how much debate goes on about the smallest issues – churches have split over the color of carpet, whether somebody could play a guitar in church, or whether a woman can make an announcement in front. Even the Protestants in Europe during the Reformation went to war and killed each other over whether the Eucharist was really the body and blood of Christ.
If America were declared a Christian nation, would this tendency to fight over the smallest differences in faith change? Would churches that uphold traditional marriage gain power over those who performed same-sex marriages? Would those who view national healthcare as a Godly objective fight with those who found problems with it? Would the liberal churches or conservative churches dominate the landscape?
And what about those who were not Christian? Would they find themselves pressured to convert or face losing their rights to hold office, vote, or even own property?
Looking at history, the only way the idea of a “Christian America” that is envisioned would ever be able to “succeed” is by seeking power, suppressing dissent, and persecuting those who disagreed. It might not follow a particular denomination, but because Christianity itself is so diverse there would need to be a central core of beliefs. There might be a few “true believers” who would carry their message forward without feeling upset by this change, but the majority of the people, including most Christians, would live in constant fear and frustration.
In an age when many Christian conservatives argue that the government cannot properly handle the issue of health care, many of the same people seem to have confidence in the government’s ability to handle matters of faith. For that reason alone, separation of church and state should be a conservative cause. Religion does best when it stands on its own two feet and does not rely on the crutch of government. Just as conservatives argue those who receive a lifetime of government funding cannot handle the open market, they should recognize that once churches depend on government “marketing” they will cease to be as productive.
After a thousand years of religious leadership, the former Holy Roman Empire is now one of the most secular places on the globe. People look at churches as irrelevant antiques. And many government-funded churches in Europe are dying on the vine. This was because religion depended on the government and when the government pulled back, religion folded. If Americans want faith to thrive, it should grow on its own – not be stifled or forced by government. Faith does not need a government handout or increased bureaucratic overhead that would inevitably result. Imagine if churches were run like the DMV!
This is not to say that there aren’t times when churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious organizations can’t partner with government for humanitarian purposes, but rather that the government should stay out of matters of faith and doctrine.
Rather than seeking power in order to turn the United States into a Christian Empire, it would be better for individual Christians and churches to follow Jesus’ words, “Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of Heaven” (NIV). The best way to grow Christianity is not through achieving power but through caring acts of kindness and mercy. Evangelical Christians should not seek to become a Christian nation, but they can seek to be a nation of Christians who have been attracted to Christ through their faith and freely chosen to follow Him. If Christians must rely on the power of government to increase their impact on the world, they are doing something very wrong.
Declaring that this is a “Christian Nation” would not make America better – it would make America a nation of robots and would misrepresent the freedom that faith can bring. America should be a nation where people can choose their own faith and not have to be afraid that they will be marginalized or at a disadvantage when it comes to how their government treats them. America is a big place, and is definitely big enough for all peaceful people of faith as well as those who choose not to follow any faith. That’s what freedom of religion is all about.
Poor Church people. Got disestablished in the Constitution and have been bitter about it ever since.
I dont give a toss what the soviets did. They separated out all religion for their own purposes, not for the reasons that the US did, or for the reasons that I cited.
Your attempt to convey “guilt by association” without addressing the issues concerned is reprehensible.
I am only giving you my opinions. I dont think I have claimed anything else. My understanding of a secular state is one in which there is no established State religion. I dont think that is an unreasonable definition.
Nobody but a hard core atheist or marxist would mistake this country for a Christian nation. We have moved very far, and it’s hard to see how we won’t deserve the judgement we will certainly get (and may be getting now).
"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"
"Indeed, Mr. Jefferson, what could be invented to debase the ancient Christianism which Greeks, Romans, Hebrews and Christian factions, above all the Catholics, have not fraudulently imposed upon the public? Miracles after miracles have rolled down in torrents."
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."
You got your history wrong. Badly. I called you on it. Unless you’re trying to say that Jefferson was a proto-Soviet.
You can’t pick and choose the Jefferson you want to use. You have to use the whole Jefferson. (Just like you can’t cherry pick the Bible. You have to reconcile the whole thing.)
Speaking of cherry picking the Bible. Go google “Jefferson Bible”. Old TJ pulled out the parts of the Bible he thought were valuable and threw away most of the stuff we would identify as “religious”, i.e., supernatural.
If you really want to get your Church knickers in a knot, go read “The Age of Reason” by Thomas Paine. Both Jefferson and Paine were attacked as atheists during their lifetimes and afterwards. The two thinkers and writers most responsible for providing the impetus for freeing the Colonies from the Church of England and the State of England were thought to be atheists. Funny thing that.
The issue is whether or not Christians really need the endorsement of government to be able to do their jobs. Just like businesses compete in the free marketplace, religions should compete in the free marketplace of ideas. The old adage that “the cream always rises to the top” would apply here. Christianity when truly lived, not just proclaimed, would be attractive. Christ said, “If I be lifted up, I will draw all men unto Myself.” Christ can draw us with the power of His love - He doesn’t require the Empire to push Him upon unbelievers.
If the government can’t handle health care, why would it be able to handle religion? Would our Christian nation be closer to Catholicism, Protestantism, or Pentacostals? Would Jim Wallis or James Dobson’s ideas predominate? What about Jeremiah Wright?
If we all sat down in a room together, we would disagree about things that we consider basic beliefs. What kind of consensus would it take to run a Christian country? Again, I think the most powerful would push their way forward and those who held a quieter faith would be shuffled aside regardless of whether they were Christians or not.
Practically speaking, it’s a bad idea.
Somebody above said I must be a Marxist or something - far from it. I’m a true conservative - somebody who doesn’t want somebody else’s beliefs shoved down my throat by the government. The government needs to stay out of the business of indoctrination whether it is Christianity or Communism. Let the church do it’s job which is to lift high the cross as an alternative to the way of the world.
Michael Peabody
Michael Peabody
America was founded upon the “rule of law” not the “rule of men”. This “rule of law” is based on the Judaeo-Christian ethic / principles laid out in the Bible.
That is an indisputable fact and has nothing to do with whether or not there were any “Christians” (including the Founders) living here either then or now (even though there were and are).
The Framers merely _recognized_ the fact (self-evident truths) that it is God who gives us our freedoms and they put a Constitution in place that would guarantee and protect what already existed - our right to be free moral agents within the rule of law.
Our Constitution protects us from other human beings who actually believe that our rights come from a top-down government that should have the power to impose what its leaders think is a superior conscious (personal beliefs), on those who don’t agree with them.
We have such mentalities in Washington right now in greater numbers than ever before.
Both the extreme right and the extreme left are flip-sides of the same “Big Government” tyrannical coin. Both covet power in order to fascistically impose their beliefs on the rest of us.
Classical liberals (nka “conservatives”, and others who are now just waking up to the danger they are in), are going to get rid of as many of those mentalities as we possibly can with each up-coming election.
Take it to the bank.
I am not posessed of any “Church knickers” - haven’t breen inside one in over ten years. Your mental image of who you are speaking to, along with it’s inherent prejudice is showing.
The proposition that “You must use the whole Jefferson” is the most intellectually vapid and frankly laughable idea I’ve heard in a long time. Are we then to accept only the statements of those with whom we agree 100% of the time?
Jefferson was also a proponent of public education, which I think has shown itself to be a rather bad idea. It’s given you the crop of voters that put the Usurper in power.
Jefferson also advocated frequent revolution:
“”God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure.”
You think that’s a good idea too?
The fact is, that true intellectual (and social and political) growth come from honoring those time-tested principles which show themselves to play out well in actual use. Each generation should be growing from this improved perspective.
Our Founders said many things that were brilliant and many that were stupid. They had, however, the good sense to codify the best of their ideas into a Constitution that has not been improved on to this day. Thus we live by rule of law. (Or at least we used to, until about sixty years ago.)
You’re correcting my history? I asked (another poster) to show where *in the Constitution* the phrase “Separation of Church and State” was used. I wasn’t aware that the writings of Presidents were canonized into law. Thank God they’re not! (Think Jimmy Carter!)
Now, your comment on the Bible. Your statement may reflect the view of some denominations of Biblical Literalists, but it is hardly mainstream theology. While the whole of the Bible is written for your edification, only specific portions of it are addressed directly to you, as a modern man.
I am well aware of the controversy surrounding the “deism” of some of the Founders, as well as the influence of Freemasonry on their thinking. The truth is, only a nation inspired by natural law can recognize that its citizens are free to exercise their religious nature, which, in the case of the US has always been Christian, but not to the exclusion of others. (Except, of course, when the “others” have the total destruction of our way of life as their goal.)
Well, what is a Christian nation? How do you define something like that? Is it a nation where everyone is a Christian? That is not possible, if only because no-one is “born” a Christian. Faith is not hereditary. Everyone who is a Christian today was, at some stage in their lives, not a Christian.
Is a Christian nation one that adheres to Christian values? That’s very difficult to define too, because there is no little disagreement amongst Christians today as to what Christian values are. A lot of what we think of as being “Christian” values are in fact cultural ones (that doesn’t mean they aren’t important and that we shouldn’t hold onto them, of course).
I agree that the world has worsened and that God’s judgement will be upon us, but I’m a bit more optimistic. There is some good in today too.
That’s an endorsement of morality and the idea of religion. I agree with John Adams on that. But what he is advocating there is not the same as a stipulation that every citizen has to have one particular set of religious values, which is what a theistic society does.
The problem with truth, even the truth as set out in the Bible, is that it has to be interpreted. In fact, that is what Christians spend their whole lives doing - interpreting and applying the idea of God and what that means to them as individuals. The problem is that what God wants for you at a particular point in time is not neccesarily what he wants for someone else, but people forget that. They think that the revelation that they have recieved is so wonderful and blindingly obvious that anyone who doesn’t “get it” must not be a “proper” Christian (as if there were any other requirement than God’s hand being upon you). Anyway, once you start saying that you have got God “right”, it follows that everyone who says differently must have God “wrong”, and therefore their opinions are of less (or no) value. That’s a dangerous idea to have in the body politic of a democratic system.
It reminds me of the conflict between the Saducees and Pharisees - even they weren’t in agreement on anything except they didn’t like Jesus. Acts 23:8 says, “For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both.”
They had all kinds of fights about that issue, and that was really a much more religious society, wasn’t it? If they couldn’t agree, what makes Christians think they will all agree enough to run this nation like a religious place?
Quite so - they won’t be able to. There have been attempts made in the past - the English commonwealth and its successor, Oliver Cromwell’s protectorate, in the 1650’s for example. The aim was “Godly government”. It doesn’t work. Theocracies are very bad systems of government, because they are, by their very nature, absolutist in tone. Thats not too bad in a homogenous society. In a multicultural, multi-ethnic, multi-denominational country like the United States it would be an utter disaster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.