Should the U.S. be considered a Christian nation?

[Microcosm]

Many conservatives would tell you that the U.S. government needs to be based on Christian values. Their reasoning for this is that this country was apparently founded in Christian principles, which is entirely untrue. Yes, the founding fathers quote and use Christian ideologies at times, but that doesn't mean this nation is or should be a Christian nation. Whether you ar a Christian or not, I believe it should be obvious that the separation of church and state is absolutely necessary for the well-being of our nation. The United States is based pivotally on the idea of freedom to believe what you'd like and not be pressured by the government to believe something else. It is absolutely ridiculous to me to justify governmental decisions by saying "Well... The Bible supports it!"

So, you may be asking yourself something like:"What effect would separation of church and state really have?"

As an example, the idea that gays shouldn't be able to marry is obviously a religious bias in our government. There is no immediate danger for gays to get married and our government really shouldn't mess with something such as who we are permitted to marry. That is our decision. This exemplifies what religious bias can do in a government such as ours, and yes, it's a big deal. Governmental religious bias separates the people from their government. This is specifically an unconstitutional behavior of our government. The founding fathers would surely agree.

I hope that this post will, at the very least, inform you of how this is actually a problem. I suggest doing some research on the subject of separation of church and state so you can form you own opinions.

Discuss these topics below: Should the U.S. be considered a Christian Nation? How is separation of church and state important, specifically in America? You may also discuss anything else related to these topics.

[Syzygy]

----

[WanderingHeart]

It ia definitely a Christian Nation. As many of the citizens there are Christian, the founding fathers were Christian, etc. But I wish it wasnt so much as that.

[phuckphace]

the government itself should be secular but at the same time actively protect religious freedom.

I wouldn't call the US a Christian nation, at least not anymore. Americans aren't really authentically religious anymore, some just continue to practice the rituals out of social habit. in another 20 years all churches will be selling their sermons on the iTunes store for $2.99 a pop

[justarandomteen]

It ia definitely a Christian Nation. As many of the citizens there are Christian, the founding fathers were Christian, etc. But I wish it wasnt so much as that.

Actually, no. The founding fathers of the U.S. we're actually deists, and did not follow the teachings of Christianity. Just wanted to point that out.

[Ridonks_CB]

Actually, no. The founding fathers of the U.S. we're actually deists, and did not follow the teachings of Christianity. Just wanted to point that out.

This. Also, what's the point of naming it a Christian nation when the majority of Christians don't even follow their books...From what I see these days, Christians just say they believe in the trinity, Jesus, and celebrate Christmas and whatever else. And in a country where, yes though the majority are Christian, there are still too many that aren't that might not fit into a nation built on their beliefs.

[justarandomteen]

This. Also, what's the point of naming it a Christian nation when the majority of Christians don't even follow their books...From what I see these days, Christians just say they believe in the trinity, Jesus, and celebrate Christmas and whatever else. And in a country where, yes though the majority are Christian, there are still too many that aren't that might not fit into a nation built on their beliefs.

Yeah. Most of the Christians I know don't even actively go to church or actually follow the religion.

[Ridonks_CB]

Yeah. Most of the Christians I know don't even actively go to church or actually follow the religion.

I mean, you don't have to be perfect - I'm not, most people aren't; but I mean they don't even know the little things! A lot use it merely as a label really. Conservatives will use the Bible to say LGBTs and abortion are wrong, yet the rest of the Bible is ignored. Building a nation like that won't make sense really.

[Microcosm]

I think one of the main points here when talking about separation of church and state is being misunderstood. Just because the majority of a country is Christian(or any religion for that matter), that doesn't mean that that country's government should create laws according to their religion. I think phuckphace put it best. However, the main point is whether the nation should or should not pass laws according to a religion. When you think about it, that idea goes against the very foundation of what the constitution's idea of religious freedom was all about. It was about the freedom to believe whatever you'd like. America isn't all Christian as some people would like to make themselves believe. We are a mix of all different religions. So, in this society, I believe it is obvious that governmental decisions should not be based on religious ideas, especially in this nation. Also, here is another thing you have to consider: Even if the founding fathers were Deist Christians, does that really justify you in saying that we should be a Christian nation? What I mean is this: Times have changed. Believe it or not, many Christians are becoming nonbelievers due to recent(although some not so recent) scientific discoveries as well as the atheist movement that seems to be sweeping across the country. Now, that aside, it is absolutely unfair for the government to put things like "In God we Trust" on dollars and to make us say "One Nation, Under God" every day in school. It really just isn't fair. Whether you are a Christian or not, that has to make sense to you. Yes, the nation was founded somewhat on religious principals, but that was because back then like 95% of the nation identified as Christians. So, obviously it's going to be based on Christian principals to some extent. However, some people like to avoid the fact that the founding fathers were trying to be unbiased when they designed this country and the people who ignore this just claim that the nation was founded as some sort of religious state, which it was obviously not. Nowadays, (after a quick google search)polls are saying that anywhere between 70%-86% of Americans identify as Christians, and I honestly believe that(given that we are in this great information age) that number is going to rapidly drop within the next 10-30 years(possibly more). This is because people all across America(and the world for that matter) will be able to access so many different sources of information so quickly and learn just about anything they'd want to know about evolution and whatnot. That in mind, it only makes sense to prepare for a generation that includes and supports all types of religions, whether believer or non-believer. That is what is best for not only our nation, but for the world, and I believe I've pretty accurately shown that.

EDIT: I just want to add sorry for the tldr. I didn't realize I was ranting that much. I doubt anyone is going to read through all that.

[Ridonks_CB]

I think one of the main points here when talking about separation of church and state is being misunderstood. Just because the majority of a country is Christian(or any religion for that matter), that doesn't mean that that country's government should create laws according to their religion. I think phuckphace put it best. However, the main point is whether the nation should or should not pass laws according to a religion. When you think about it, that idea goes against the very foundation of what the constitution's idea of religious freedom was all about. It was about the freedom to believe whatever you'd like. America isn't all Christian as some people would like to make themselves believe. We are a mix of all different religions. So, in this society, I believe it is obvious that governmental decisions should not be based on religious ideas, especially in this nation. Also, here is another thing you have to consider: Even if the founding fathers were Deist Christians, does that really justify you in saying that we should be a Christian nation? What I mean is this: Times have changed. Believe it or not, many Christians are becoming nonbelievers due to recent(although some not so recent) scientific discoveries as well as the atheist movement that seems to be sweeping across the country. Now, that aside, it is absolutely unfair for the government to put things like "In God we Trust" on dollars and to make us say "One Nation, Under God" every day in school. It really just isn't fair. Whether you are a Christian or not, that has to make sense to you. Yes, the nation was founded somewhat on religious principals, but that was because back then like 95% of the nation identified as Christians. So, obviously it's going to be based on Christian principals to some extent. However, some people like to avoid the fact that the founding fathers were trying to be unbiased and they'll just claim that the nation was founded as some sort of religious state, which it was obviously not. Nowadays, (after a quick google search)polls are saying that anywhere between 70%-86% of Americans identify as Christians, and I honestly believe that(given that we are in this great information age) that number is going to rapidly drop within the next 10-30 years(possibly more). That in mind, it only makes sense to prepare for a generation that includes and supports all types of religions, whether believer or non-believer. That is what is best for not only our nation, but for the world, and I believe I've pretty accurately shown that.

EDIT: I just want to add sorry for the tldr. I didn't realize I was ranting that much. I doubt anyone is going to read through all that.

I did actually :D I really like how you put it and you're very intelligent :)

[Microcosm]

I did actually :D I really like how you put it and you're very intelligent :)

Thank you, you're very kind. I usually am able to better express my opinions when it's late at night for some reason. I can usually put my thoughts into words much easier when it's late.

[Ridonks_CB]

Thank you, you're very kind. I usually am able to better express my opinions when it's late at night for some reason. I can usually put my thoughts into words much easier when it's late.

I'm just being honest haha. That seems to be the case with a lot more people because our brains tend to be more active during the night - I have trouble focusing mine so even though I think a lot I don't get out much :D

[Uniquemind]

Hahaha.

The colony of Virginia was founded on the pursuit of Greed, hence what started the tobacco industry.


Massachusetts was attempted to be founded on Christian principles but they failed to paranoia and the failing to love each other so they ratted each other out everytime someone did any kind of sin, and then that caused them to bear false witness (a sin) against each other.


So no the USA is not founded on Christian principles, and when it had tried attempts have hurt the country and it's people.

It's taken some philosophical leaves out of the play book of morals Judeo-Christianity has had to offer, but that does not warrant the nation as a Christian nation.


It isn't consistent enough.

A real Christian nation is not a democracy, nor is it a place where greed drives the inner workings of a country's mechanics. A Christian nation cannot have a Wall St. or any institution that make's God's house a house a merchants/money changers. (Hence why Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple).

[WanderingHeart]

Actually, no. The founding fathers of the U.S. we're actually deists, and did not follow the teachings of Christianity. Just wanted to point that out.

This. Also, what's the point of naming it a Christian nation when the majority of Christians don't even follow their books...From what I see these days, Christians just say they believe in the trinity, Jesus, and celebrate Christmas and whatever else. And in a country where, yes though the majority are Christian, there are still too many that aren't that might not fit into a nation built on their beliefs.


Right, right. That's my mistake. But sometimes it does seem like it is a christian nation, or is at least becoming one :-/

[SethfromMI]

no. I am a Christian and trust Jesus is my Savior. that being said, America was founded as a country of religious freedom. although, at least originally, there were a lot of Christian principles which went into our laws and stuff, even a lot of the founding fathers were not Christians (though many of them were).

In order to have a country of truly religious freedom, one religion cannot dominate over the other. and I think many of the decisions our government has been making clearly shows we are not a Christian nation

[DerBear]

It should not be considered a Christian nation because America, if you look at how America was built, it was built on a cultural backbone of a mass amount of people from different ethnic races and religions and still prominently features these vastly different races and religions to this day.

Britain has a much larger chance of being considered a Christian nation than America. Except we aren't.

[Microcosm]

no. I am a Christian and trust Jesus is my Savior. that being said, America was founded as a country of religious freedom. although, at least originally, there were a lot of Christian principles which went into our laws and stuff, even a lot of the founding fathers were not Christians (though many of them were).

In order to have a country of truly religious freedom, one religion cannot dominate over the other. and I think many of the decisions our government has been making clearly shows we are not a Christian nation

This is what I'd like to see. You are a Christian, but you understand the concept of religious freedom in the constitution very well. You also understand how many different religions the people of America follow. The thing is, some Christians will literally refuse to believe this. They'll think that people like me(atheists or non-believers in general) are attacking their religion when we say that their religion has no place in being a vital part of a democratic governmental law-making system. You, though, seem to understand this. That's good. I think it's important that we attempt to convince the law-makers of this country to at least try to keep some of their religious beliefs out of the law-making process. This is because it is unfair to those who are not of the same religion as them.

Good response, Seth.

Right, right. That's my mistake. But sometimes it does seem like it is a christian nation, or is at least becoming one

I'd have to disagree. Although I'll be restating this(as I have stated it previously in this thread), the number of American atheists and non-believers is most likely going to rise. Now, I can't say for sure that it will. I can't read the future.

However, let's indulge the idea that it(the number of American non-believers) isn't going to change at all.
Even if this is the case, it is STILL important that we establish some governmental foundational morals around this subject. This is because we are a democracy. A democratic state--especially one in which a foundational idea is freedom of religion--should never have one national religion. That's crazy. We have many people of all sorts of different religions. It is unfair to them to expose them to your beliefs forcefully every time they look down at a dollar bill, or they say the Pledge of Allegiance. If we could get Christian law-makers to agree to leave religious beliefs out of their law-making decisions, I think it could bring us to a more fair system of law-making with laws that can be agreed upon by a much larger number of people.

The whole "A democratic state. . . should never have one national religion" thing I mentioned was also inspired by Uniquemind:
A real Christian nation is not a democracy, nor is it a place where greed drives the inner workings of a country's mechanics. A Christian nation cannot have a Wall St. or any institution that make's God's house a house a merchants/money changers. (Hence why Jesus threw the money changers out of the temple).
I agree with this.

[phuckphace]

Rainbow Dash

I did say I support a secular government, but I also think it's dumb to get worked up over "In God We Trust" on currency or a Bible passage on a public monument because it might trigger someone who believes differently. like really who cares

I'd remove "In God We Trust" mainly because it's no longer applicable to us. 2015 America's only god is money.

[Microcosm]

Rainbow Dash

I did say I support a secular government, but I also think it's dumb to get worked up over "In God We Trust" on currency or a Bible passage on a public monument because it might trigger someone who believes differently. like really who cares

I'd remove "In God We Trust" mainly because it's no longer applicable to us. 2015 America's only god is money.

I agree. It isn't a huge deal, but it is still unfair to some extent. I mainly used that as an example of religious bias and unfairness in our government. But yeah, I totally agree.

[Vlerchan]

I wrote this for elsewhere.

[Natural Law (the base of Classical Liberalism is] secularised Christianity, a collection its ideas and perspectives divorced from their original metaphysical foundations, as seen in closer examination of their shared base principles:
Individualism, found in the view that man possesses a soul dissociated from their social context, and through this an intimate and privileged relation with God.
Egalitarianism, found in the view that man possesses a soul of absolute value shared across mankind, and through this an equalised chance availabible of redemption before God.
Universalism, found in the natural expression of all religions which view themselves as a revealed truth of God, or gods.
The ‘rational’ expression of these ideas was developed during the Enlightenment era. Founded in the contractualism of Hobbes, Rousseau, and others, it posited that man was born in a state of natural freedom, and from this their natural rights are derived. It was at it’s most fundamental atomistic and asocial, with no regard offered for duties or considerations above the hedonistic pursuit of rational self-interest and individual-actualisation. It’s main principles share a much more obvious basis to those of [natural law]
Individualism, found in the view that man is born in separateness, dissociated from their social context, and for this reason their rights exist on an individual level.
Egalitarianism, found in the view that man is born in separateness, detached from their social context, and through the equalised basis for their existence, man possesses equalised rights.
Universalism, found in the natural expression of a common origin of man.

The United States is built on Christian Principals. These principals just happened to be cleaved from their original metaphysical context and labeled Liberalism. Of course that's not what the OP is looking for I don't think - but then I find the term 'Christian Princepals' so vague I decided I might have some fun. When topics like this start the point is to look at the elements of Christian social thought that offend modern sensibilities - elements otherwise can't be Christian.

Of course separation of Church and State was intended by the Founding Fathers. The clause regarding religion in the First Amendment wouldn't be so strong otherwise.

There is no immediate danger for gays to get married and our government really shouldn't mess with something such as who we are permitted to marry.
This is a religious bias within the public and not the government and it's institutions. There's an important difference here. The latter would void separation of church and state - the former doesn't.

There's no workable means of eliminating the former.

The founding fathers would surely agree.
Except in the Founding Fathers time homosexuals were hung by the neck until death.

---

Britain has a much larger chance of being considered a Christian nation than America. Except we aren't.
Except yous are. There's no mandate for separation in the UK.

Your head of state - the Queen - is also the head of the Church of England. There's a number of high-ranking church officials guaranteed places in the House of Lords. The UK doesn't even attempt to make a secret of it.

[Microcosm]

There's no workable means of eliminating the former.

This seems to be one of the key problems with democracy. The people can be mindlessly made to believe something by government propaganda. In this case, the government surrounds us with Christian ideologies and thus makes the nation more Christian as a whole which makes us all the more likely to vote for anything that sounds like the Christian thing to vote for.

[Vlerchan]

In this case, the government surrounds us with Christian ideologies and thus makes the nation more Christian as a whole which makes us all the more likely to vote for anything that sounds like the Christian thing to vote for.
The Democrats represent something that's quite post-Christian.

I also think you have it backwards. I think the government might have a Christian-bias because the people have a Christian-bias.

---

Not to mention that most of the 'propaganda' is the production of the politico-media and its relevant elites.

[Body odah Man]

Divided on this topic. I don't know enough about America as a whole (despite having lived in California) to really give an opinion on this topic so yeah.

[Uniquemind]

The Democrats represent something that's quite post-Christian.

I also think you have it backwards. I think the government might have a Christian-bias because the people have a Christian-bias.

---

Not to mention that most of the 'propaganda' is the production of the politico-media and its relevant elites.


Vlerchan is semi-correct here.


A large portion of both the American and UK voting populace (electorate is the term for this) votes because they feel their vote matters or they have a very strong passionate single-issue they care a lot for.


Government, specifically only listens to the opinions of those who vote, because that determines if they keep their elected-seat job or not, and this is also the stage where campaign $ influences what stances a elected official can take while they are in office.



It may be true that the common-populace feels a certain way and is polled a certain way when asked about issues, but if they are complacent non-voters they aren't giving any incentive for their elected official to change what bills/laws get passed and sent to the White House.


Congress is where most of this social policy and laws are shaped, not the president.



What's ended up happening is not only is propaganda or half-truths (becuase there is some truth to a lot of the propaganda that's why it sounds very convincing), but only those who vote and stay voting from an emotional standpoint get their opinions heard to influence law.



Those who don't feel their vote matters and have given up, well they're just along for the ride even if they hold moderate common sense views.



People are also victims of being lazy and not REGULARLY reading and researching their ballot measures and candidates voting record.

--

The Founding Father's theorized that citizens would always vote in their self-household interests, but what's ended up happening in the last 150 years, is that people are voting against their household interests, in the spirit of voting for a propagandized ideal/platform of a political party that's bought and paid for by Wall St. or other industry giants from certain economic sectors.

[phuckphace]

Except you are. There's no mandate for separation in the UK.

Your head of state - the Queen - is also the head of the Church of England. There's a number of high-ranking church officials guaranteed places in the House of Lords. The UK doesn't even attempt to make a secret of it.

it's my understanding that devout, practicing Anglicans are almost totally extinct now, and that the Church of England (much like the monarchy itself) basically just exists as a vestigial institution with no real influence. state-funded cosplay, you might say

how true this is I don't know, but it sure isn't Ælfrǣd the Great's England anymore.

[Vlerchan]

it's my understanding that devout, practicing Anglicans are almost totally extinct now, and that the Church of England (much like the monarchy itself) basically just exists as a vestigial institution with no real influence. state-funded cosplay, you might say

how true this is I don't know, but it sure isn't Ælfrǣd the Great's England anymore.
This is true. I'm just making the claim that formal separation of church and state doesn't exist.

i.e., It would be legal to reserve all government positions for devout, practising Anglicans, if one so wished.

---

I'm also not sure what aspect of my semi-correct post Uniquemind was posing a correction to, so I'm just going to read past it.

[fairmaiden]

in another 20 years all churches will be selling their sermons on the iTunes store for $2.99 a pop

''Westboro Baptist Church - Chillin' with g0d ft. Ludacris''
--
Nah, I don't really think the US should be considered a Christian nation.

[DerBear]

Except yous are. There's no mandate for separation in the UK.

Your head of state - the Queen - is also the head of the Church of England. There's a number of high-ranking church officials guaranteed places in the House of Lords. The UK doesn't even attempt to make a secret of it.

The United Kingdom is not a Christian nation any more because our society has rejected this entirely. If we look at British politics we no longer include the church or even consider it really, I mean occasionally when an issue of legislating that involves the church we do involve them but we are not considering ourselves a Christian nation. And to be honest the Queen does not play an important role in our politics or even society. Essentially the queen hasn't done jack shit with her powers since the formation of modern parliament because parliament acts for her.

In British society we do not classify ourselves as a Christian nation any more and I think society is what's important.

[Vlerchan]

The United Kingdom is not a Christian nation any more because our society has rejected this entirely.
I was referring the UKs institutions. Like implied in this response (http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3136293&postcount=26 ).

That tends to be what's considered in regards to determining if a state is secular or not.

I do realise that as far as its politics tend to be concerned it's very much post-Christian.

[Uniquemind]

Obviously if God exists, he doesn't think some of the most religious states in the USA are meeting his requirements either.

Year after year he keeps pounding them with tornado, after hurricane, after earthquake, after flood, after fire, after sinkhole, after hurricane year after year after year despite prayers for mercy.


So obviously...not a Christian nation.

[Babs]

One of the ideas the country was founded on was separation between church and state. Like phuckphace said, I think the government should be secular, and the laws in this country should not be religiously motivated, but we should still be able to practice religion freely if we so choose.

[Zenos]

Conservatives would have you believeing the USA is a Christian nation when it was not founded as such!

The Treaty of Tripoli confirms that!


Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli:






























On Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli



Video version!

In a late 18th century treaty reached by America with certain Muslim pirates of the African coast, one part of which, Article 11, states:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[Arkansasguy]

Many conservatives would tell you that the U.S. government needs to be based on Christian values. Their reasoning for this is that this country was apparently founded in Christian principles, which is entirely untrue. Yes, the founding fathers quote and use Christian ideologies at times, but that doesn't mean this nation is or should be a Christian nation. Whether you ar a Christian or not, I believe it should be obvious that the separation of church and state is absolutely necessary for the well-being of our nation. The United States is based pivotally on the idea of freedom to believe what you'd like and not be pressured by the government to believe something else. It is absolutely ridiculous to me to justify governmental decisions by saying "Well... The Bible supports it!"

So, you may be asking yourself something like:"What effect would separation of church and state really have?"

As an example, the idea that gays shouldn't be able to marry is obviously a religious bias in our government. There is no immediate danger for gays to get married and our government really shouldn't mess with something such as who we are permitted to marry. That is our decision. This exemplifies what religious bias can do in a government such as ours, and yes, it's a big deal. Governmental religious bias separates the people from their government. This is specifically an unconstitutional behavior of our government. The founding fathers would surely agree.

I hope that this post will, at the very least, inform you of how this is actually a problem. I suggest doing some research on the subject of separation of church and state so you can form you own opinions.

Discuss these topics below: Should the U.S. be considered a Christian Nation? How is separation of church and state important, specifically in America? You may also discuss anything else related to these topics.

America was founded on anti-Christian liberal principles. These principles are wrong. One does not need to be a Christian to oppose secularism, one only needs to be logically coherent.

[Microcosm]

America was founded on anti-Christian liberal principles.
Source?

These principals are wrong.

Which principals are you generalizing about and how are they wrong?

One does not need to be a Christian to oppose secularism, one only needs to be logically coherent.

This isn't even what this post was discussing in the first place. The opposition to secularism isn't the topic we're discussing here.

[Arkansasguy]

Source?

A source for what? That America was founded on Enlightenment values? That the enlightenment promoted liberalism? That the enlightenment was anti-Christian?

Which principals are you generalizing about and how are they wrong?

The idea that the legitimacy of authority comes from the consent of the governed. That idea that the state should have no religion. The idea that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't physically harm others.

The first is wrong because an authority which exists only be continuing consent is not an authority at all. The second is wrong because clearly if a religion is true, then this should be recognized in society (and if no religion is true, they should all be positively rejected by society). The third is wrong for multiple reasons, one being that it allows acts that morally corrupt society, another being that it can allow acts which will result in physical harm down the line.

This isn't even what this post was discussing in the first place. The opposition to secularism isn't the topic we're discussing here.

Is the thread not about whether the U.S. Should be Christian or secular?

[Microcosm]

A source for what? That America was founded on Enlightenment values? That the enlightenment promoted liberalism? That the enlightenment was anti-Christian?



The idea that the legitimacy of authority comes from the consent of the governed. That idea that the state should have no religion. The idea that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't physically harm others.

The first is wrong because an authority which exists only be continuing consent is not an authority at all. The second is wrong because clearly if a religion is true, then this should be recognized in society (and if no religion is true, they should all be positively rejected by society). The third is wrong for multiple reasons, one being that it allows acts that morally corrupt society, another being that it can allow acts which will result in physical harm down the line.



Is the thread not about whether the U.S. Should be Christian or secular?

A source for what? That America was founded on Enlightenment values? That the enlightenment promoted liberalism? That the enlightenment was anti-Christian?

The enlightenment was not "anti-Christian" in and of itself. It led to forming systems of logic based on science which would be anti-christian, but it would depend on who is using them. Most enlightenment thinkers were Christians, I would say.

The idea that the legitimacy of authority comes from the consent of the governed. That idea that the state should have no religion. The idea that people should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as they don't physically harm others.

The first is wrong because an authority which exists only be continuing consent is not an authority at all. The second is wrong because clearly if a religion is true, then this should be recognized in society (and if no religion is true, they should all be positively rejected by society). The third is wrong for multiple reasons, one being that it allows acts that morally corrupt society, another being that it can allow acts which will result in physical harm down the line.

1. An authority which is deemed an authority by the consent of those it governs is an authority which creates an agreement with those that it governs in order to keep peace and order and stability. Basically, the people agree and decide whether a government or law body is right in it's ability to justly create and enforce laws. That is the American system. Nowhere within this system does a necessity for religion arise.

2. The idea that a state should have no one religion which is believed by all of it's people is not what America represents by itself. This claim is drawn from our freedom to choose what we believe in. Therefore, it makes sense to say that the government should not be based on one religion because that would not represent the people because the people believe in a variety of different religious views and philosophies.

3. People are allowed to do whatever they want to the extent that it doesn't harm others mentally or physically. Whether something has actually harmed someone mentally or not is up to debate and is subjective to the agreement of the majority on how it should be dealt with. However, whether something physically harms someone is obvious on what wrong has been done.

The fact that there is not any one agreement on a matter such as gay marriage rights mentally harming anyone(and it physically harms no more than does a normal marriage of man and woman) would suggest that it could perhaps fall under the freedom to choose whom one wants to marry. This would be parallel in idea to the disagreement because those who are not gay are permitted to marry the opposite sex while those who are are permitted to marry the same sex. Thus, everyone can be content.

[Microcosm]

This is true. I'm just making the claim that formal separation of church and state doesn't exist.

Since I didn't respond to this earlier, I think you are probably right here. You've convinced me that your previous point that the government is religiously biased because the people are religiously biased is true. However, this would simply turn to whether a societal, large scale reformation of religious thought is needed. Perhaps if people were to view their religious values as "possibly wrong" then religious bias would decline in government. That isn't to say that they shouldn't believe what they do, but it is to say that their religious beliefs, when they are applied to the creation of laws, should have some logical basis to their justification that isn't just "God commanded it so."

[kev99]

(...)but it is to say that their religious beliefs, when they are applied to the creation of laws, should have some logical basis to their justification that isn't just "God commanded it so."

The problem is that it is rarely the case in modern democratic regimes. You more often than not hear people trying to promote laws obviously religiously-influenced with "logical arguments". Some may believe in them, but others simply use them as a non-religious justification that is more acceptable by the public.

Gay marriage in France met strong opposition from religious movements, but most didn't say "it goes against our religious beliefs". Rather, they talked about "the family model", "social order", "children psychological development" and so on. Most were members of groups with strong ties with ultra-catholics.

Before even thinking about the creation of laws, I think it is better to start by removing explicit, direct religious references made by official state institutions. That a political leader calls for God in an official speech or that the Bible is used in a justice court room appears like very wrong to me. A government and its institutions should stay as neutral as possible in religious matters.

[Microcosm]

The problem is that it is rarely the case in modern democratic regimes. You more often than not hear people trying to promote laws obviously religiously-influenced with "logical arguments". Some may believe in them, but others simply use them as a non-religious justification that is more acceptable by the public.

Gay marriage in France met strong opposition from religious movements, but most didn't say "it goes against our religious beliefs". Rather, they talked about "the family model", "social order", "children psychological development" and so on. Most were members of groups with strong ties with ultra-catholics.

Before even thinking about the creation of laws, I think it is better to start by removing explicit, direct religious references made by official state institutions. That a political leader calls for God in an official speech or that the Bible is used in a justice court room appears like very wrong to me. A government and its institutions should stay as neutral as possible in religious matters.

I agree, but my previous claim that you quoted was just addressing the people that actually do use "God said so" as justification for laws. While I totally recognize that there are people with genuine logical arguments against gay marriage, there are certain people who are not so logical about it.

[kev99]

I agree, but my previous claim that you quoted was just addressing the people that actually do use "God said so" as justification for laws. While I totally recognize that there are people with genuine logical arguments against gay marriage, there are certain people who are not so logical about it.
My point was that for the most part, those people were not really believing in the logic they used to defend their point. They use it as a comfortable way to justify a position mainly motivated by the "God said so" belief, so that they aren't denounced as religious zealots.

[Microcosm]

My point was that for the most part, those people were not really believing in the logic they used to defend their point. They use it as a comfortable way to justify a position mainly motivated by the "God said so" belief, so that they aren't denounced as religious zealots.

It should be, then, up to the public and the good citizen to recognize and determine whether such arguments are valid or not. But yeah, I see where you are coming from and I agree.

[Arkansasguy]

The enlightenment was not "anti-Christian" in and of itself. It led to forming systems of logic based on science which would be anti-christian, but it would depend on who is using them. Most enlightenment thinkers were Christians, I would say.

So it produced anti-Christian results.

1. An authority which is deemed an authority by the consent of those it governs is an authority which creates an agreement with those that it governs in order to keep peace and order and stability. Basically, the people agree and decide whether a government or law body is right in it's ability to justly create and enforce laws. That is the American system. Nowhere within this system does a necessity for religion arise.

If I can simply refuse consent to the authority, then it isn't an authority, just a voluntary association. Of course, our government is more reasonable in practice than in theory, and does not allow such refusal of consent.

2. The idea that a state should have no one religion which is believed by all of it's people is not what America represents by itself. This claim is drawn from our freedom to choose what we believe in. Therefore, it makes sense to say that the government should not be based on one religion because that would not represent the people because the people believe in a variety of different religious views and philosophies.

If the people held a variety of different beliefs about what color the sky is, should the government be neutral? No of course not, only with regard to religion is this false notion of neutrality entertained.

3. People are allowed to do whatever they want to the extent that it doesn't harm others mentally or physically. Whether something has actually harmed someone mentally or not is up to debate and is subjective to the agreement of the majority on how it should be dealt with. However, whether something physically harms someone is obvious on what wrong has been done.

The fact that there is not any one agreement on a matter such as gay marriage rights mentally harming anyone(and it physically harms no more than does a normal marriage of man and woman) would suggest that it could perhaps fall under the freedom to choose whom one wants to marry. This would be parallel in idea to the disagreement because those who are not gay are permitted to marry the opposite sex while those who are are permitted to marry the same sex. Thus, everyone can be content.

I didn't say anything about mental harm. And there certainly are cases where there is disagreement over whether a person can be help responsible for causing physical harm indirectly, see refusal to vaccinate, for starters.

[Vlerchan]

That the enlightenment was anti-Christian?
It was more post-Christian than anti-Christian. It revolved around Christian principals - Individualism and Egalitarianism and Universalism - that were just divorced from their original metaphysical foundations.

The first is wrong because an authority which exists only be continuing consent is not an authority at all.
That's not what modern democracies entail though. Most revolve around a constitution which guarantees a set of rights. But regardless in democracies the authority is built on the consent of a certain proportion of the people and then wielded against dissenters.

The second is wrong because clearly if a religion is true, then this should be recognized in society (and if no religion is true, they should all be positively rejected by society).
False Dilemma. I'm agnostic - I don't recognise that religious claims are right or wrong because there's no means of determining whether the claims are right or wrong. Of course freedom of religion could be seen as an extension of a number of other liberal rights (speech - association - etc.).

So it produced anti-Christian results.
I can agree the enlightenment undermined Christian Social Thought and the Christian churches. But let me get this straight:

You're agreeing that it's the scientific method as developed during the Enlightenment that's the major issue?

[Arkansasguy]

It was more post-Christian than anti-Christian. It revolved around Christian principals - Individualism and Egalitarianism and Universalism - that were just divorced from their original metaphysical foundations.

Christian Universalism versus liberal universalism are such radically different ideas I don't think they even fall into he same genus of thought.

That's not what modern democracies entail though. Most revolve around a constitution which guarantees a set of rights. But regardless in democracies the authority is built on the consent of a certain proportion of the people and then wielded against dissenters.

Correct. No actual liberal state fully implements its ideas.

False Dilemma. I'm agnostic - I don't recognise that religious claims are right or wrong because there's no means of determining whether the claims are right or wrong. Of course freedom of religion could be seen as an extension of a number of other liberal rights (speech - association - etc.).

If that's so, then all religions are baseless and should be rejected.

I can agree the enlightenment undermined Christian Social Thought and the Christian churches. But let me get this straight:

You're agreeing that it's the scientific method as developed during the Enlightenment that's the major issue?

The scientific method was not invented during the enlightenment. The major issue is the principle of secularism, of separation of truth and state.

[Vlerchan]

Christian Universalism versus liberal universalism are such radically different ideas I don't think they even fall into he same genus of thought.
Feel free to explain.

Correct. No actual liberal state fully implements its ideas.
That would require the elimination of the state - and according to social contract theories - the rule of law that is a central principal of classical liberalism. You'll find in in social contract theories the claim that the individual must submit to some amount of authority in order to uphold her negative freedoms.

If that's so, then all religions are baseless and should be rejected.
No. It means we can't determine whether religion is baseless or not - and even this statement is contingent on our finite knowledge of the universe. It might be the case that god exists - and it might be the case that god doesn't exist.

But we don't know as of now and aren't willing to take action favouring either side.

The scientific method was not invented during the enlightenment.
Please note I used the term developed and not invented.

The modern formulation of the scientific method is the product of the Enlightenment.

The major issue is the principle of secularism, of separation of truth and state.
I can agree secularism undermined the grip of Christian social thought too.

[Arkansasguy]

Feel free to explain.

Christian universalism asserts only that all people have the same objective relation to God and are bound by the same moral laws. It is not contrary to particular loyalty. The Christian belief that all men are equal is ontological, it says all are equal before God. It does not assert that all men should have the same rights in positive law.

That would require the elimination of the state - and according to social contract theories - the rule of law that is a central principal of classical liberalism. You'll find in in social contract theories the claim that the individual must submit to some amount of authority in order to uphold her negative freedoms.

But how can this be justified in liberal thought? By what right can the actual state do so but not someone else?

No. It means we can't determine whether religion is baseless or not - and even this statement is contingent on our finite knowledge of the universe. It might be the case that god exists - and it might be the case that god doesn't exist.

But we don't know as of now and aren't willing to take action favouring either side.

Note that I used the word baseless, not wrong.

Please note I used the term developed and not invented.

The modern formulation of the scientific method is the product of the Enlightenment.

Please explain.

[Vlerchan]

It does not assert that all men should have the same rights in positive law.
Neither did classical liberal thought.

It asserted that people should have the same rights in natural law.

---

I feel I should add that modern liberalism is a major jump from the classical liberalism of the Enlightenment. I believe it's much easier to view liberalism as the ideological base of the bourgeoisie - and it's undergone extensive moulding in-line with the impact of material conditions on their interests. It's not 'pure' and it's not intended to be 'pure'.

However even in the Enlightenment it was impure in practice. The slave-trades existence in the United States being one example - it just happened to suit the Southern Bourgeoisie.

But how can this be justified in liberal thought?
It must exist in order for the individuals natural rights to be upheld beneath the rule of law and this principal forms the main base of liberalism.

It also tends to be seen as based on the tacit consent of the people (based in their individual self-interest).

I find this page (http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/) a good general overview. I'd skip to Hobbes.

Note that I used the word baseless, not wrong.
I'm not seeing how it makes a difference.

It's the case we don't have information pointing either direction and so have no base to favour either direction. This lends itself to secularism.

Please explain.
Here's a basic overview. (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_revolution) Please skip to the section on the scientific method.

I would provide an exact link but I've found it impossible on my phone.

[Karkat]

I feel like there's a huge problem with people (including, well, lawmakers, congress, etc) not understanding what separation of church and state is

Or just using their beliefs as an excuse to be irrational

I feel like if in general American Citizens could handle religion etc with logic, and didn't just use it to assfuck everyone they disagree with, it'd be a different story- but I also don't think we'd find the need to call it a "Christian country" at that point.