Political Cartoon: Christian Nation
Wednesday, April 15th, 2009 at
12:32 pm
From Mike Lester (click for a larger version):
A federal holiday commemorating the birth of a major religious figure, and we’re not a Christian nation. No, this does not mean that we all believe the same things, but it does acknowledge our roots.
Filed under: Christianity • Government • Religion
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
We’re not a Christian nation. We’re a nation that is predominantly (nominally) populated by Christians. If that’s what one means by Christian nation, then that’s one thing. But that’s not the same as saying we are a Christian nation. That has severely negative connotation to many of us, including many of us Christians.
We are a nation who’s founding was influenced heavily by concepts from the Bible, specifically. Most of our founding fathers were Christians, and most of those that weren’t had a healthy respect for it. Indeed, as I note, if this weren’t true, and if it hadn’t stayed that way for centuries, Christmas, and even Thanksgiving, would never have made it as official, government-sanctioned holidays.
Indeed, some of that Christianity is nominal, and indeed over the years the melting pot of immigration has changed that dynamic. Nonetheless, our history is what it is.
Yes, the Constitution was influenced by a lot, including their Christianity. And the Iroquois Constitution. And the Magna Carta. And John Locke and the Enlightenment.
And yet, we were not formed as a Christian nation. We were formed as a nation where Christians, and Muslims and Jews and all others had the liberty to worship as they wished. Or not.
We are not a Christian nation, not in the sense that we are specifically a Christian nation.
We are a nation founded by Christians – and Deists – but we are not a Christian nation. God forbid.
Yes, the Constitution was influenced by a lot, including their Christianity. And the Iroquois Constitution. And the Magna Carta. And John Locke and the Enlightenment.
Indeed. And none of those latter people and items you list were religious figures or religious texts. (Though the Magna Carta was also Christian-influenced.) When it comes to the country’s religious heritage, it is decidedly Christian.
And yet, we were not formed as a Christian nation. We were formed as a nation where Christians, and Muslims and Jews and all others had the liberty to worship as they wished. Or not.
Freedom of religion, with no establish government-sanction one, was a concept that, I would contend, was made possible precisely because it was mostly Christians who were involved in the decision. In fact, the nations of the world that are Muslim nations or founded on other religions tend to prove my point. The nations with the most freedom — religious freedom and other freedoms — are generally those founded by Christians. That people in those countries are free to worship in their own ways does not take away on what principles the country was founded.
My definition of a “Christian nation” is, I think, different than you take it. When you say “We are a nation founded by Christians”, I mean it that way, and also that the principles they used, when there was a religious tone to them, was Christian. And as a Christian nation, we have freedoms that a nation founded by Muslims, or by atheists, generally does not have. In that sense, we are a Christian nation, and acknowledging that history shouldn’t be a matter of timidity.
I think for most people (just a hunch) when one says, “Christian Nation,” or “Muslim Nation,” or “Jewish nation,” etc, they imagine a church-state.
Yes, we were a nation whose founders were predominantly Christian and Deist. If that’s all you mean. But I believe the correct phrase there would be “we are a nation founded by Christians and Deists.” So, no real disagreement there, except on how correct the term, “Christian Nation,” is.
Understood. What I’m trying to point out is that a nation founded by Christians, a “Christian nation” in my parlance”, would generally be less a church-state than, say, a Muslim nation; that the fact that it is a “Christian nation” would most likely make it more free in that regard.
Thus, in my mind, calling something an “X nation” does not automatically assume a tight church-state relationship with X. It may or may not depending on the principles of X.