Posted on May 28, 2020
How a Plague Exposed the "Christian Nation" Myth
1.14K
24
8
10
10
0
The evidence is in. The United States can finally abandon the pretense that it is a Christian nation. For most of us, this isn’t news. Since its inception, America has demonstrated many of the same strengths and character flaws as other colonial western nations.
But if COVID-19 has done anything, it’s revealed that the U.S. brand of Christianity doesn’t look anything like Jesus.
But if COVID-19 has done anything, it’s revealed that the U.S. brand of Christianity doesn’t look anything like Jesus.
How a Plague Exposed the "Christian Nation" Myth
Posted from patheos.com
Theology
Religion
Christianity
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 2
3
3
0
Hmmm-I might have to agree with you on this one... to a point.
For me, the real question is, would you like it to be? The United States is not a "Christian nation" for the simple reason that the Constitution prevents it on a technicality-whether or not that is what the "Founding Fathers" intended (frankly, I don't believe it was). The First Amendment prohibits the national legislature from entering into ecumenical disputes one way or the other... so functionally, it cannot legislate upon the same. Personally, I believe this "interpretation" of Constitutional law has been ignored, misapplied and abused by BOTH and ALL sides for generations; preventing positive moral steps when one subset's religious views exclude them... and promoting immoral steps despite other subset's religious objections. Neither really gets at the true heart of "freedom of religion" as I perceive the Founders to have understood it... let alone the true nature of Christian doctrine as applies to society and civilization.
I may be wrong, but my belief is that articles such as the attached have one goal: discredit Christianity in favor of promoting humanism with the ultimate goal of legislating against the former in favor of the latter. More simply put; some may feel that if they can punch enough "holes" in Christian culture... it will eventually become "illegal" to publicly follow it.
Naturally, I take the greatest possible exception to that if true.
On the other hand, we as Christians could take a lesson or two here. As proud as I am of my country... I belong to a larger fellowship of mankind that knows no borders or flags. Though I pragmatically view threats to our national sovereignty, freedom, and prosperity with a critical eye... I also believe that in all cases, my faith should supersede my patriotism.
And yet... I am no fool.
In my opinion, it would be a powerful strategy of the "enemy" to destroy faith from within via shame and doubt. Convince American Christians that our principles are "bigoted", and we'll abandon them. Sell us on the notion that to be true followers of Christ, we should reject our liberties... and perhaps we'll give them up. Spread the false doctrine that "perfect love" is little more than total tolerance... and we'll embrace the very things Christ and His apostles warned us to forsake.
For me, the real question is, would you like it to be? The United States is not a "Christian nation" for the simple reason that the Constitution prevents it on a technicality-whether or not that is what the "Founding Fathers" intended (frankly, I don't believe it was). The First Amendment prohibits the national legislature from entering into ecumenical disputes one way or the other... so functionally, it cannot legislate upon the same. Personally, I believe this "interpretation" of Constitutional law has been ignored, misapplied and abused by BOTH and ALL sides for generations; preventing positive moral steps when one subset's religious views exclude them... and promoting immoral steps despite other subset's religious objections. Neither really gets at the true heart of "freedom of religion" as I perceive the Founders to have understood it... let alone the true nature of Christian doctrine as applies to society and civilization.
I may be wrong, but my belief is that articles such as the attached have one goal: discredit Christianity in favor of promoting humanism with the ultimate goal of legislating against the former in favor of the latter. More simply put; some may feel that if they can punch enough "holes" in Christian culture... it will eventually become "illegal" to publicly follow it.
Naturally, I take the greatest possible exception to that if true.
On the other hand, we as Christians could take a lesson or two here. As proud as I am of my country... I belong to a larger fellowship of mankind that knows no borders or flags. Though I pragmatically view threats to our national sovereignty, freedom, and prosperity with a critical eye... I also believe that in all cases, my faith should supersede my patriotism.
And yet... I am no fool.
In my opinion, it would be a powerful strategy of the "enemy" to destroy faith from within via shame and doubt. Convince American Christians that our principles are "bigoted", and we'll abandon them. Sell us on the notion that to be true followers of Christ, we should reject our liberties... and perhaps we'll give them up. Spread the false doctrine that "perfect love" is little more than total tolerance... and we'll embrace the very things Christ and His apostles warned us to forsake.
(3)
(0)
SSG Samuel Kermon
I can agree with your statement. It is the way I feel. I wear a mask when required and leave the mask where possible.
(1)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
Capt Gregory Prickett - In Derek Davis's work, "Religion and the Continental Congress 1774-1789", he goes into this incident (and similar debates, as there were many) in greater detail. It's important to remember that concerns hinged not so much on whether or not to "exclude" Christianity from Constitutional law... as in preventing adherents of certain religions (namely, "Deists, Jews, pagans, Mahometans... and even the Pope himself", as quoted by the North Carolina ratifying convention) from holding federal office. Connecticut's delegate chastised his peers for excluding God's name from the draft...and William Williams enters the discussion by essentially expressing his "regret" he had, "not been farsighted enough" to have done so. To my mind, these all clearly point to two realities...One, that these 18th Century men, largely descended from Puritans and Anglicans, feared the influence of "other" faiths if the subject of religion was left "ambiguous". Two, that the clear resolution that won the day was opting to neither legally favor nor denounce any faith. To my mind, this is a perfectly logical solution within a society which was predominantly "Christian" in the first place.
(0)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
Capt Gregory Prickett - I will respectfully decline comment on your last sentence because I'm not familiar enough with the argument to have an opinion. In forty-two years of life, I've yet to encounter any academic debate attempting to prove the U.S. was legally established as a "Christian nation". From a legal perspective... clearly it was not; hence our current difficulties.
As to the original debate, I don't sense either of us disagree on the facts regarding what was said...merely why. Based on my reading of the various histories, personal correspondence, and contemporary commentaries... I simply cannot be convinced a propensity of the Constitutional Convention desired to "remove" faith from American society or principles, to include Constitutional law. The debate seems to have focused on how the question becomes "complicated" within a revolutionary state which had recently won its freedom from a "Divine Right" king (with aide from a Catholic one), ostensibly split with a "state religion" in the form of the Church of England, and was comprised of citizens claiming a host of various sects ranging from Anabaptists to Quakers, and Presbyterians to people with decidedly more "non-sectarian" views.
As to the original debate, I don't sense either of us disagree on the facts regarding what was said...merely why. Based on my reading of the various histories, personal correspondence, and contemporary commentaries... I simply cannot be convinced a propensity of the Constitutional Convention desired to "remove" faith from American society or principles, to include Constitutional law. The debate seems to have focused on how the question becomes "complicated" within a revolutionary state which had recently won its freedom from a "Divine Right" king (with aide from a Catholic one), ostensibly split with a "state religion" in the form of the Church of England, and was comprised of citizens claiming a host of various sects ranging from Anabaptists to Quakers, and Presbyterians to people with decidedly more "non-sectarian" views.
(0)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
Capt Gregory Prickett - I have read portions of it previously. There are myriad works out there that do a good job (in my opinion) of accurately portraying the Founders as "real" people, as opposed to "perfect" altruists solidly aligned with modern interpretations of their principles. Adams was vain and resentful... but also exceedingly intelligent. Hamilton was ambitious to a fault... but also a natural leader. Jefferson was as complex a person as one would ever hope to study... but also clearly motivated by a very deep and personal sense of morality and ethics. Each of these men understood the world they lived in. Then, as now... there was no "pure" Right or Left. Some people wanted a "different version" of England, while others wanted something more like what the French Republic ultimately became. Were there true atheists among them? Very probably. Were they the deciding voice? I think it highly improbable, based on the known facts. I think these intelligent, rational men understood that they had to find a way to obtain consensus from Massachusetts missionaries, Scots-Irish Protestants, and Jacobite Catholics... each of whom professed to follow the same basic theology, but who also appear to have believed the other were going to hell. What they decided upon was neutrality... not ambivalence.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google