Is Christian nationalism un-American?

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

3

7

07.30.2019 02:04PM

3

7

07.30.2019 02:04PM

-->

@Mharman

You’ll find that they intended for a secular government by, of, and for the people, a people of Judeo-Christian culture.

This is an assertion built on your own assumptions. The Declaration of independence was written in psuedo religious language in order to appeal to its audience- a king claimed to rule by divine right and other countries which may be needed as allies in the struggle for independence. The Constitution has no mention of god(s), and has prohibitions against religious tests (ie. Judeo Christian culture is not favored). Furthermore, the words of the founding fathers outside these documents argue against the mixing of religion and government or a view of America being founded with a Christian government.

#32

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

3

2

07.30.2019 02:05PM

3

2

07.30.2019 02:05PM

-->

@Mharman

Back then the only Creator was God.

This is laughable. There were and are hundreds of creator god myths. It's not as laughable as...

In saying “creator”, they outright said “God”.

No, in saying creator, they literally outright said creator. Please show a connection to your version of god. It would have been twice as easy to write "god" than it is "creator" based on the number of letters. Why use that synonym and leave doubt about what they meant? You know the guy who wrote it, Jefferson, thought that in less than a hundred years people would put the Virgin Mary and the greek goddess Minerva in the same category: mythology?

#33

Debates: 23

Posts: 4,228

3

6

10

07.30.2019 02:12PM

3

6

10

07.30.2019 02:12PM

-->

@ludofl3x

They founding fathers made it clear that they were Christian in many other documents. Are you honestly telling me that they decided that someone else created them else created them as they were making that document, only to change their minds and believe in God again after writing that document? You need to check your logic.

#34

Debates: 23

Posts: 4,228

3

6

10

07.30.2019 02:18PM

3

6

10

07.30.2019 02:18PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

Government and culture are not the same thing. A secular government does not mean a secular culture.

And another thing: the founders did have Judeo-Christian values. I’m not assuming anything. But don’t take it from me; take it from the experts. https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

#35

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

3

2

07.30.2019 02:19PM

3

2

07.30.2019 02:19PM

-->

@Mharman

I'm telling you they had many opportunities to specify which god, to say which system of biblical laws they ascribed the country to run by, etc., and they didn't. THe conclusion I draw is that they respected all religions equally, not one above any other, and certainly not "any" above "none." They specifically draw a line between church and state. There's simply nothing in the language that is Christian in any way. They had PLENTY of chances to write that and didn't. You're saying "Yeah, but that's what they meant." I'm saying "That's not what's on the paper that founds the country." You're saying "but it's in other stuff." I'm responding "and that stuff does not found the country."

#36

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

07.30.2019 02:20PM

3

07.30.2019 02:20PM

The founders were all Christian men

I think they were strongly influenced by deism. Deism was probably as close to atheism as was possible in the 18th century because science still offered no reasonable alternaties to a divine origin of the cosmos and life. I feel confident that the founders would been atheists had they been able to read Darwin, but that science came more than a century later.

It would not have affected the substance of the founding documents because their laudable principles are universal and humanist, hijacked by religion.

Topic's author

#37

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

3

7

07.30.2019 02:34PM

3

7

07.30.2019 02:34PM

-->

@Mharman

There is no dispute *some* of the founders were Christian, but the Constitution was not created specifically for them (or Christians in general) and concepts such as liberty, democracy, equality, etc. did not come from their religious values.

Topic's author

#38

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

3

7

07.30.2019 03:29PM

3

7

07.30.2019 03:29PM

-->

@keithprosser

It would not have affected the substance of the founding documents because their laudable principles are universal and humanist, hijacked by religion.

That's true, but it also true principles laid out in the Constitution (eg. Liberty, democracy, equality, etc)

are not found in the religions claimed to be the basis of it.

#39

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

07.30.2019 03:38PM

3

07.30.2019 03:38PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

Mais oui! That is why religion had to hijack them!

Topic's author

#40

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

3

7

07.30.2019 03:41PM

3

7

07.30.2019 03:41PM

-->

@keithprosser

👍👍👍😅

#41

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

2

07.30.2019 04:02PM

2

07.30.2019 04:02PM

Some CN seems to equate the 10 commandments to JCP (Judeo Christian Principles), and this would make sense since this is a well
both faths might draw from.

"We the people" stands above any personal beliefs any specific founder may have had about god(s) and their role in our government. The Constitution lays out what they agreed on and that is a government which derives its power from the people.

Love your family seems a valuable sentiment, but not one that generally need be mandated. How do you see this value at the basis of US
government? Are you aware there are passages which would stand against this in the Bible?

But who are these Christian nationalists?

The 10 commandments were placed at a time that was pretty brutal. Some of the things that were not only legal, but mandated would be unthinkable today.

Today, society at large tends to view the Ten Commandments as sort of an obvious gimme ("of course we shouldn't murder!"), So, some may view even the obvious morality by today's standards as originating/influenced from/by the creator, some just a progressive understanding of human morality.

Why should we favor one over the other?

#42

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

2

07.30.2019 04:06PM

2

07.30.2019 04:06PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

Love your family seems a valuable sentiment, but not one that generally need be mandated. How do you see this value at the basis of US government? Are you aware there are passages which would stand against this in the Bible?

Not that I'm aware of no. I know some tend to think this of this scripture.

Matthew 10:35 - For I have come to turn "'a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law--

#43

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

3

2

07.30.2019 04:10PM

3

2

07.30.2019 04:10PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

The 10 commandments were placed at a time that was pretty brutal. Some of the things that were not only legal, but mandated would be unthinkable today.

Today, society at large tends to view the Ten Commandments as sort of an obvious gimme ("of course we shouldn't murder!"), So, some may view even the obvious morality by today's standards as originating/influenced from/by the creator, some just a progressive understanding of human morality.

Where in the bible are you instructed specifically as to which rules to follow versus the ones that are "unthinkable" to enforce today? And three of the ten commandments have to do with how much you should love, fear or revere god, one has to do with thought crime, and NONE have to do with rape or slavery. That leaves six that are sort of the "gimme" you talk about, but they are insufficient in dealing with modern morality and overly broad. The moral code we should favor is the one that changes over time, not the one that a book says was written in stone, via magic, in an illiterate society, from thousands of years ago.

Which commandments do you advise ignoring? Which Levitican laws no longer apply, and how do you know?

#44

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

2

07.30.2019 04:24PM

2

07.30.2019 04:24PM

-->

@keithprosser

I put it to you that what has happened is that religion has claimed ownership of niceness. There is a superficial rationale behind that notion: if there is no god, what reason do people have not to be selfish hedonists? Especially in America the idea that an atheist can't be a good person is widespread - millions of Americans would not vote an atheist for president. (In the UK being religious is more of a handicap to polical ambition!)

Christian Nationalism is based on the idea that niceness comes from religion and nastiness from irreligion. It trades on the notion that the past was better because it was more religious, ignoring the reality that the past was not better than the present and progress was achived through secularisation.

Christian Nationalism harks back to a mythical golden age (ie the 1950's of 'Happy Days',not the reality)and is opposed to change of any sort. Abortion is opposed because in those mythical days nice girls didn't get pregnant, gays hadn't been invented and women were content to be 'home-makers'.

Thus CN appeals to those who favour stability over progress. But its stability to the point of stasis and intellectual stagnation.

Then I don't think the term Christian Nationalist is appropriate. If someone thinks one can't be good unless they're a Christian, then they have personal issues interpreting scripture, because the Bible does refer to good (by human standards) non-Christians. The parable of the Good Samaritan
would be one example. Another would be the Roman Centurion Cornelius referred to in the Book of Acts.

This wouldn't be Christian nationalism, just an issue of understanding scripture. A nationalist would basically want a theocracy. A mandate that everyone not only submit to a Christian identification, but allegiance to a particular church or denomination.

Opinions are going to vary obviously. But, this is a sign of something good. Nothing wrong with Christians having different views, and challenging other Christians, and nothing wrong with atheists having differing views, and challenging other atheists.

For what it's worth, those who are hesitant to vote for atheists are not just Christians (or people of various religions), but it includes agnostics as wel.

#45

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

07.30.2019 04:48PM

3

4

9

07.30.2019 04:48PM

-->

@Mharman

So you’re telling me that our Christian founding fathers who believe our right came from God created a country whose values are based off of secularism? Something’s wrong with your logic here.

The following either proclaimed to be a deist, or based on their beliefs they could be classified as a deist:

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Paine

Benjamin Franklin

James Madison

John Adams

George Washington

Ethan Allen

James Monroe

#46

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

2

07.30.2019 04:57PM

2

07.30.2019 04:57PM

-->

@keithprosser

I think they were strongly influenced by deism. Deism was probably as close to atheism as was possible in the 18th century because science still offered no reasonable alternaties to a divine origin of the cosmos and life. I feel confident that the founders would been atheists had they been able to read Darwin, but that science came more than a century later.

It would not have affected the substance of the founding documents because their laudable principles are universal and humanist, hijacked by religion.

In the States we have 2 evils. Those who claim all of the heroic Founding Fathers were Christians, and those who claim they were all deists.

One of the reasons (without yet reviewing your link) for thinking they were deists was because a number of them possessed deist literature. But, they most likely had many books of different views both religious and philosophical. Thomas Jefferson is said to have owned the Quran for instance. I don't think TJ was a Muslim though.

The problem with the view is that there are very few who professed deism. Thomas Paine being probably the most outspoken, and possibly Benjamin Franklin. Deism was accepted, but not looked too favorably upon. There were obviously some atheists, but probably very few. No noted atheists from that time period that I know of. And not even Thomas Paine seemed to look too favorably upon atheism.

One of the grossest assumptions is that George Washington was a deist due to a comment by an Episcopalian minister. The Union of Deists have
actually made George Washington an honorary deist (without his permission). What's key is that this came in the form of an accusation defended by George Washington's grand daughter concerning his Christianity. I don't think it any different than any evangelical today claiming Billy Graham a heretic or Universalist.

What's fairly certain is that there were enough Christians in America to have extinguished any deist, atheist, or any other religious stance. We could have easily become something akin to a Muslim nation.

#47

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

2

07.30.2019 05:00PM

2

07.30.2019 05:00PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

Stronn isnt making any claims about atheism - he is talking about the Constitution. Given there is no mention of god(s) in it, it follows our founding document was not built upon revelation.

What and where is the claim upon revelation concerning the U.S.?

Topic's author

#48

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

3

7

07.30.2019 05:05PM

3

7

07.30.2019 05:05PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

Are you aware there are passages which would stand against this in the Bible?
Not that I'm aware of no. I know some tend to think this of this scripture.

Matthew 10:35

This passage undeniably demonstrates 'love your family' is not central to the Christian faith. After all, if Jesus was not bothered by dividing family, and came to do exactly that, then one could hardly say it is a Judeo-Christian value.

#49

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

07.30.2019 05:05PM

3

4

9

07.30.2019 05:05PM

-->

@Mharman

Back then the only Creator was God. So in using “creator”, they’d only be referring to God. Back then, “creator” was a synonym for “God”. In saying “creator”, they outright said “God”.

You're kidding me.

There are quite a few creator gods and they've been around for very long time. [LINK]

Sub Saharan African contexts:

Mbombo of Bakuba mythology, who vomited out the world upon feeling a stomach ache

Unkulunkulu in Zulu mythology

American contexts:

Nanabozho (Great Rabbit), Ojibwe deity, a shape-shifter and a cocreator of the world[36][37]

Cōātlīcue in Aztec mythology

Chiminigagua (and/or Bague) in Muisca mythology

Viracocha in Inca mythology

A trickster deity in the form of a Raven in Inuit mythology

Near Eastern contexts:

Egyptian mythology

Atum in Ennead, whose semen becomes the primal component of the universe

Ptah creating the universe by the Word

Neith, who wove all of the universe and existence into being on her loom.

’Ēl in Canaanite religion

Marduk killing Tiamat in the Babylonian Enûma Eliš

Asian contexts:

Esege Malan in Mongolian mythology, king of the skies

Kamuy in Ainu mythology, who built the world on the back of a trout

Izanagi and Izanami-no-Mikoto in Japanese mythology, who churned the ocean with a spear, creating the islands of Japan

In Hinduism, its Vedic scriptures call the unchanging eternal reality as Brahman. The Nasadiya Sukta of the Rig Veda expresses doubt whether there is or is not any creator deity, and whether even gods know who or what created the universe. In later Puranic period, equate the Brahman to Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva or Devi, and each major sub-tradition of Hinduism calls them respectively as the creator deity.

European contexts:

The sons of Borr slaying the primeval giant Ymir in Norse mythology

Rod in Slavic mythology

Ipmil or Radien-Áhči (Radien Father) in Sámi mythology

Oceanic contexts:

Makemake, creator of humanity, the god of fertility and the chief god of the "Tangata manu" or "bird-man" cult of Rapa Nui mythology.

Ranginui, the Sky Father, and Papatūānuku, the Earth Mother in Māori mythology

#50

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

2

07.30.2019 05:12PM

2

07.30.2019 05:12PM

-->

@ludofl3x

Where in the bible are you instructed specifically as to which rules to follow versus the ones that are "unthinkable" to enforce today? And three of the ten commandments have to do with how much you should love, fear or revere god, one has to do with thought crime, and NONE have to do with rape or slavery. That leaves six that are sort of the "gimme" you talk about, but they are insufficient in dealing with modern morality and overly broad. The moral code we should favor is the one that changes over time, not the one that a book says was written in stone, via magic, in an illiterate society, from thousands of years ago.

Which commandments do you advise ignoring? Which Levitican laws no longer apply, and how do you know?

I think you're a bit confused on my statement about the unthinkable. The laws of the 10 commandments prohibited actions that were common practice of the day that today we would consider unthinkable, therefore no need to emphasize except to blatant transgressors (criminals).

There's nothing to ignore.

In another post to Castin, I referred to the military law of shooting a soldier for cowardice in the line of duty. That's extremely harsh, I think you would agree. I certainly think it is. But I can't honestly say it's not a necessary law under war time circumstances. Should a civilian be executed for being a coward? No!

Do you think a soldier should be executed for running from the battlefield?

#51

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

3

2

07.30.2019 05:23PM

3

2

07.30.2019 05:23PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

Do you think a soldier should be executed for running from the battlefield?

No, I don't. But why we have battlefields with any Christians on them at all is a mystery, considering the one you cited as a gimme was thou shalt not kill, which makes no allowance for nuance. Part of the problem that makes these pronouncements totally useless today. Thou shalt not kill...ok, what about if your inaction leads to someone's death? Did you kill them if you could have saved them but chose not to? Where in the ten commandments does it say don't masturbate? Or don't have sex?

#52

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

2

07.30.2019 05:24PM

2

07.30.2019 05:24PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

This passage undeniably demonstrates 'love your family' is not central to the Christian faith. After all, if Jesus was not bothered by dividing family, and came to do exactly that, then one could hardly say it is a Judeo-Christian value.

I think what you're implying is that this scripture contradicts other scriptures that employ 'love your family' like

Exodus 20:12 - "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.

I think you agree that this passage doesn't contradict the idea of family love. Right?

Jesus' purpose was not to divide the family. He would probably be against marriage if this were the case.

If your family demanded that you become a racist, that might separate you from them. But it wouldn't mean you didn't love them. if they separated themselves from you, would you become a racist so as to be reunited?

Jesus knew that some followers would have to face separation from family due to the followers conversion. Therefore, unfortunately division would be unavoidable.

#53

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,282

3

4

9

07.30.2019 05:27PM

3

4

9

07.30.2019 05:27PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

In the States we have 2 evils. Those who claim all of the heroic Founding Fathers were Christians, and those who claim they were all deists.

Apparently it was about a 50/50 mix.

#54

Debates: 0

Posts: 2,008

3

2

07.30.2019 05:29PM

3

2

07.30.2019 05:29PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

This passage undeniably demonstrates 'love your family' is not central to the Christian faith. After all, if Jesus was not bothered by dividing family, and came to do exactly that, then one could hardly say it is a Judeo-Christian value.
I think what you're implying is that this scripture contradicts other scriptures that employ 'love your family' like

Exodus 20:12 - "Honor your father and your mother, so that you may live long in the land the LORD your God is giving you.
I think you agree that this passage doesn't contradict the idea of family love. Right?

I was taught that was about obedience, not love, but at least you can agree that while it doesn't countermand the idea of family love, it DOES contradict the idea of hate your brother that he cited, right? So how do you pick which one's right? Is it the one that makes you feel better, that makes the most sense, in this case?

Wouldn't not becoming a racist NOT be honoring your father and mother, putting you in violation of that commandment? If not, why not? Because don't hate, don't be a racist, those aren't commandments.

Therefore, unfortunately division would be unavoidable.

In his holy wisdom, why would then "hate them in return" be his advice? Why not "talk it over, testify to them, here's the words you can use to convince your loved ones so we can all live in peace and harmony"?

#55

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

2

07.30.2019 05:32PM

2

07.30.2019 05:32PM

-->

@ludofl3x

No, I don't. But why we have battlefields with any Christians on them at all is a mystery, considering the one you cited as a gimme was thou shalt not kill, which makes no allowance for nuance. Part of the problem that makes these pronouncements totally useless today. Thou shalt not kill...ok, what about if your inaction leads to someone's death? Did you kill them if you could have saved them but chose not to? Where in the ten commandments does it say don't masturbate? Or don't have sex?

Ok, so you don't think a soldier should be shot for running away from battle.

Since strict harsh laws are generally meant as a deterrent, what if half a battalion ran from battle because they knew they wouldn't face a firing squad, and we lost the war as a consequence?

How can these commandments be useless today if we follow many of them?

#56

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

07.30.2019 05:35PM

3

07.30.2019 05:35PM

-->

@SkepticalOne

@RoderickSpode

My theory is that most (as in 'nearly all') Christians are nice people - in fact most people are nice! However Christians are taught that they are naturally sinful and evil and it is only their faith in God that prevents them from being murderous thieving rapists.

Of course that's nonsense. People are not naturally evil and only held back their faith - people are naturally nice (not totally so, but we're not actually evil by default). But it doesnt suit a church's interest to say that! Churches want people to believe they need religion and that civilsation will collapse without it.

I see this thread has moved on since I started this post!

Topic's author

#57

Debates: 9

Posts: 1,720

3

7

07.30.2019 05:37PM

3

7

07.30.2019 05:37PM

-->

@RoderickSpode

But who are these Christian nationalists?

The 10 commandments were placed at a time that was pretty brutal. Some of the things that were not only legal, but mandated would be unthinkable today.

Today, society at large tends to view the Ten Commandments as sort of an obvious gimme ("of course we shouldn't murder!"), So, some may view even the obvious morality by today's standards as originating/influenced from/by the creator, some just a progressive understanding of human morality.

Why should we favor one over the other?

Who are Christian nationalists? Those who attempt to inject Christianity into government arguing Christianity was instrumental to the Constitution.

Notions found in the 10 commandments are not unique or new to Christianity. If murder was not considered bad before religion then I doubt we would be having this conversation since mankind predates it. No god belief is needed to accept some actions cause more harm than benefits. So, it's not a matter of Christian values vs. humanistic values- it's simply humanistic values.

Furthermore, some commandments are completely contradictory to the government established by our founders. For example, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" is incongruent with religious freedom.

#58

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

2

07.30.2019 05:40PM

2

07.30.2019 05:40PM

-->

@ludofl3x

I was taught that was about obedience, not love, but at least you can agree that while it doesn't countermand the idea of family love, it DOES contradict the idea of hate your brother that he cited, right? So how do you pick which one's right? Is it the one that makes you feel better, that makes the most sense, in this case?

I'm not sure what you're referring to. Are you thinking of this scripture?

Romans 9:13 King James Version (KJV)
13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

Wouldn't not becoming a racist NOT be honoring your father and mother, putting you in violation of that commandment? If not, why not? Because don't hate, don't be a racist, those aren't commandments.

If your parent were racist, you think you'd be dishonoring them by not becoming a racist?

#59

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

2

07.30.2019 05:44PM

2

07.30.2019 05:44PM

-->

@ludofl3x

Therefore, unfortunately division would be unavoidable.
In his holy wisdom, why would then "hate them in return" be his advice? Why not "talk it over, testify to them, here's the words you can use to convince your loved ones so we can all live in peace and harmony"?

Where was this advice?

#60

Debates: 0

Posts: 1,044

2