Re: Is America a "Christian" Nation?
Posted: Tue Mar 31, 2015 8:00 pm
I am not sure your question has been answered, Alex. Your question is an important but a difficult one. It all depends upon what one means by “Christian” and what, exactly is our “nation,” and how the two refer to each other. Those understandings will vary considerably with who you talk to here and typically lack much in depth and insight.
NH has made the point of the dominant influence of Christian attitudes and aspirations on our nation. He is correct. Even the most modern, secular societies are products of Western cultural evolution where the Judeo-Christian traditions played a pivotal role. However, predominant influence may not be the same as identification. While Marxism certainly would not have been possible without the redemptive, socially transformative example of Christianity or the social justice concerns of the Judaic prophetic tradition, a nation that identifies itself as Marxist or Socialist would not necessarily call themselves “Christian,” or “Judaic.”
One could also define identification by the demonstrated values of the nation’s primary enterprises. By their fruits, you will know them sort of thing. In that case, we are the producers of war and armaments and empty, entertaining diversions for the world, while creating wealth for ourselves. This demonstrates the dominant values of power, violence, wealth, and vapid sensuality – what one would be more likely to consider pagan than Christian. Still, most Americans would hardly consider their nation “pagan,” so that definition also falls short.
While in pre-modern societies, the political collective and its religious culture were not separate, the modern “nation” is a political construction, a human artifact, and, as such, its nominal identifications are, in the end, voluntary, consensual political acts. It is ultimately what the nation, its people, and its leadership predominantly chose to identify with.
First off, America cannot be constitutionally declared a “Christian” nation in accordance with the 1st Amendment to the Constitution which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This was a pragmatic requirement for the new government over colonies of a variety of religious refugees with different identifications, as well as an historical awareness of how religious fanaticism can make consensual governance impossible from the instructive history of the English Civil War over a century before. This constitutional precedent was reasserted in the new republic in 1796 in the Treaty of Tripoli, which received ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and was signed by President John Adams. The treaty stated, “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 (Muslims).” Unless the Bill of Rights is amended and long standing traditions upended, the government cannot identify itself with any religion.
In the USA the religious identification issue is extremely controversial, mostly due to the weakness of our religious culture and education that has led to endless patterns of insipid reaction and counter reaction on assorted issues.
In spite of our apparent religiosity, the state of religious education here is deplorable, and most of the people who thump the Bible the hardest, have little understanding of what they are thumping, much less the complex social, economic, and political challenges over the centuries that brought forth the assorted scriptures they so loudly champion. While asserting the predominant authority of scripture, the Sola Scriptura, as the foundation of a Christian life goes back to Luther, that authority traditionally did not require a literal hermeneutic. American “fundamentalism” is a more recent development as a reactionary response to scientific principles such as evolution and the perceived encroachment of secular aspirations (i.e. Gay Marriage) on a traditional way of life that many people fear is unraveling.
A loud, quite visible group in the secular community respond to religious fundamentalism and assertion with a kind of reactionary atheism that considers religion, particularly Islam, as the root of violence in the world. These people not only have minimal understanding of religion, but they also have very little comprehension of the philosophy of science, have never seriously read Popper or Kuhn, or have any sense of the limitations of reason as elucidated in philosophy as far back as Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason.”
The paucity of understandings on both sides of the religious/secular divide in this country leads to endless arguments that I find depthless and fatuous.
So, there is no consensual identification for the US at this time, “Christian” or otherwise. We really do not know what we are so we substitute blame and grievance to relieve our poverty and confusion of our identity. A difficult situation that does not have the substance to provide you with any real answer to the question you posed, Alex.
NH has made the point of the dominant influence of Christian attitudes and aspirations on our nation. He is correct. Even the most modern, secular societies are products of Western cultural evolution where the Judeo-Christian traditions played a pivotal role. However, predominant influence may not be the same as identification. While Marxism certainly would not have been possible without the redemptive, socially transformative example of Christianity or the social justice concerns of the Judaic prophetic tradition, a nation that identifies itself as Marxist or Socialist would not necessarily call themselves “Christian,” or “Judaic.”
One could also define identification by the demonstrated values of the nation’s primary enterprises. By their fruits, you will know them sort of thing. In that case, we are the producers of war and armaments and empty, entertaining diversions for the world, while creating wealth for ourselves. This demonstrates the dominant values of power, violence, wealth, and vapid sensuality – what one would be more likely to consider pagan than Christian. Still, most Americans would hardly consider their nation “pagan,” so that definition also falls short.
While in pre-modern societies, the political collective and its religious culture were not separate, the modern “nation” is a political construction, a human artifact, and, as such, its nominal identifications are, in the end, voluntary, consensual political acts. It is ultimately what the nation, its people, and its leadership predominantly chose to identify with.
First off, America cannot be constitutionally declared a “Christian” nation in accordance with the 1st Amendment to the Constitution which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This was a pragmatic requirement for the new government over colonies of a variety of religious refugees with different identifications, as well as an historical awareness of how religious fanaticism can make consensual governance impossible from the instructive history of the English Civil War over a century before. This constitutional precedent was reasserted in the new republic in 1796 in the Treaty of Tripoli, which received ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797, and was signed by President John Adams. The treaty stated, “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 (Muslims).” Unless the Bill of Rights is amended and long standing traditions upended, the government cannot identify itself with any religion.
In the USA the religious identification issue is extremely controversial, mostly due to the weakness of our religious culture and education that has led to endless patterns of insipid reaction and counter reaction on assorted issues.
In spite of our apparent religiosity, the state of religious education here is deplorable, and most of the people who thump the Bible the hardest, have little understanding of what they are thumping, much less the complex social, economic, and political challenges over the centuries that brought forth the assorted scriptures they so loudly champion. While asserting the predominant authority of scripture, the Sola Scriptura, as the foundation of a Christian life goes back to Luther, that authority traditionally did not require a literal hermeneutic. American “fundamentalism” is a more recent development as a reactionary response to scientific principles such as evolution and the perceived encroachment of secular aspirations (i.e. Gay Marriage) on a traditional way of life that many people fear is unraveling.
A loud, quite visible group in the secular community respond to religious fundamentalism and assertion with a kind of reactionary atheism that considers religion, particularly Islam, as the root of violence in the world. These people not only have minimal understanding of religion, but they also have very little comprehension of the philosophy of science, have never seriously read Popper or Kuhn, or have any sense of the limitations of reason as elucidated in philosophy as far back as Kant’s “Critique of Pure Reason.”
The paucity of understandings on both sides of the religious/secular divide in this country leads to endless arguments that I find depthless and fatuous.
So, there is no consensual identification for the US at this time, “Christian” or otherwise. We really do not know what we are so we substitute blame and grievance to relieve our poverty and confusion of our identity. A difficult situation that does not have the substance to provide you with any real answer to the question you posed, Alex.