A Christian Nation?

No. We may have Christians who were involved in founding, but we are a Capitalistic Democratic Republic.

Christian Nationalism, though is very popular.

Douglas Wilson proponent of it.

The Case for Christian Nationalism - Canon Press

 

Yes.

We were founded as a nation of Christians. The U.S Supreme Court has even said explicitly that we're a Christian nation.

Every nation has to be something. You can be a Christian nation, a Hindu, Islamic, Pagan, Jewish, etc, but the one thing a nation can never be is "neutral" or "secular". There is always some God that each nation serves. Out of that list we are Christian.

Our entire law system is based off the Bible (Not the Koran, not the Torah, not Zeus, not Jupiter, etc).

 

Looking at our greed, entertainment industry, and elected politicians, the answer has to be no, not even close

 

Nations are neutral. Neither good nor bad

the USA has a lot of professing Xians though

 

No… it’s a republic

 

Of course not. Nations are not disciples of Jesus.

Not at all. There were many Christians in the colonies, but fewer in percentage today.

I'm sure you've heard that from David Barton, the revisionist historian. He mischaracterizes the Holy Trinity v. United States decision of 1892 in order to make that claim. The case is about immigration -- specifically, whether immigration law can prohibit the Holy Trinity church from selecting a rector/pastor from another country to lead the congregation. The law stated,

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that from and after the passage of this act it shall be unlawful for any person, company, partnership, or corporation, in any manner whatsoever, to prepay the transportation, or in any way assist or encourage the importation or migration, of any alien or aliens, any foreigner or foreigners, into the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia under contract or agreement, parol or special, express or implied, made previous to the importation or migration of such alien or aliens, foreigner or foreigners, to perform labor or service of any kind in the United States, its territories, or the District of Columbia.​

Justice Brewer concluded that the law did not apply to this case because:

We find, therefore, that the title of the act, the evil which was intended to be remedied, the circumstances surrounding the appeal to Congress, the reports of the committee of each house, all concur in affirming that the intent of Congress was simply to stay the influx of this cheap unskilled labor.​

But, beyond all these matters, no purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people.​

Brewer goes on to demonstrate through the history of the Colonies and the first hundred or so years of US history that the United State is not antagonistic toward religions. In other words, we have religious liberty. Therefore, using immigration law to undermine the practice of one's religion where the state has no compelling interest (stopping the influx of cheap unskilled labor), would be wrong.

That's a long way from claiming we are a Christian nation.

That's silly. The government of the United States strives to be neutral toward religion and irreligion. It's the basic principle of the separation of church and state -- a BAPTIST principle -- that is part of our First Amendment. (Yes, I know the literal words, "separation of church and state" are not in the Constitution, but the principle is there. Just like the phrase "separation of powers" is not in the Constitution, nor the word "Trinity" in the Bible.)

The United States serves money.

Moreover, the Kingdom of God is not connected to human government. All disciples of Jesus are part of the Kingdom of God, and the Kingdom of God must be the highest allegiance. Claiming that a human government is somehow Christian is a form of idolatry.

That's false. It is primarily based off of English Common Law along with Christian-influenced and Enlightenment-influenced principles, but it is definitely not based on the Law of Moses. Yes there are significant influences, but that's it.

 

There is no such thing as neutral. Everything either pleases or displeases God. There is no "lukewarm" middle.

The U.S is currently serving mammon, and pride. Christians should pray the U.S chooses instead to go back to Christ.

 

Matthew 28:16-20 in the Great Commission tells us to disciple the nations. Maybe you think "nations" means something else, but a plain reading of it indicates "governments and people therein" precisely because the preceding verse says "All Authority on Heaven and Earth is given to me".

That means authority over what actions you do, authority over how politicians conduct themselves, it means authority over every single moral being in the world (amongst which Governments are counted, and corporations too).

It's not a long way at all. Because Brewer in facts says verbatim we are a Christian nation. Quoting Brewer, whom you seem to hold in such high regard, I can't imagine you would try to redefine the below:

"If we pass beyond these matters to a view of American life, as expressed by its laws, its business, its customs, and its society, we find every where a clear recognition of the same truth. Among other matters, note the following: the form of oath universally prevailing, concluding with an appeal to the Almighty; the custom of opening sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer; the prefatory words of all wills, "In the name of God, amen;" the laws respecting the observance of the Sabbath, with the general cessation of all secular business, and the closing of courts, legislatures, and other similar public assemblies on that day; the churches and church organizations which abound in every city, town, and hamlet; the multitude of charitable organizations existing every where under Christian auspices; the gigantic missionary associations, with general support, and aiming to establish Christian missions in every quarter of the globe. These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation. In the face of all these, shall it be believed that a Congress of the United States intended to make it a misdemeanor for a church of this country to contract for the services of a Christian minister residing in another nation?"

The First Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with the United States Government being Christian or not. The FIrst Amendment simply says Congress can't make a Federal level Church. State Level Churches existed well into the founding of this country into the 1800s. Christians invented the idea of Freedom of Religion. Every nation on this Earth must serve a master, whether it be mammon (which the U.S is currently serving as you pointed out) or Christ.

Being a Christian, I'd prefer the U.S serve Christ over mammon. I expect every Christian would.

Yes, clearly too many lukewarm Christians are not discipling the U.S government that everything on this Earth must serve Christ. You prove my point that every nation must serve someone. For the past several decades you are right that the U.S at large has chosen mammon over its former master Lord Jesus.

The Kingdom of God is certainly connected to human government. Jesus explicitly tells his disciples to make disciples of all nations and to proclaim to all governments that Christ is Lord. In fact part of a Christian's duty is to submit himself to lawful government, so of course they're connected. And of course the Kingdom of God must be the highest allegiance. That's what Christians need to be pushing for the U.S to go back to Christ and quit following paganism.

Jesus telling his followers to disciple all the nations and proclaim to every government that He is Lord and that all authority is given to him is idolatry? What a warped theology. Imagine calling all postmillennialists idolaters. John Edwards and all other Puritans were idolaters, what a revelation!

Yes, English common law, which is based off the Bible with Jesus teachings and the Law of Moses. Thank you for admitting it's the largest influence.

 

The New Testament was written in Koine Greek, and the English translations sometimes carry connotations that the biblical text does not, and vice verse.

The word translated “nations” is ἔθνη (ethnē). It’s Greek root is ἔθνος (ethnos), from where we get our word “ethnic.” It is not referring to political nation-states, but a group of people, a tribe, family, or ethnic groups.

A plain reading of the Greek (the real New Testament biblical text), is referring to people groups.

Nope. That is your misinterpretation of the text, based on ambiguity of the English translation you are using and bad information you have been given.

He does. That was Brewer’s opinion (whatever he meant by it), but it is not a holding of the Supreme Court.

I have no opinion either way about Justice Brewer. I suppose you think I hold him in high regard because I actually cite a link to the case and quote from the relevant portion of the actual decision of the Court (the holding of the Supreme Court), not the dicta. I cite the case so we can look at it together and perhaps learn something. I have some knowledge of Constitutional Law, especially as it related to religious liberty and the history of the First Amendment, so I want to actually look at things instead of just making unsupported claims or trying to "win" an argument.

I course I don't try to "redefine" it. However, you are missing the big picture and how Constitutional Law and Supreme Court decisions are written/used. To be fair, most people haven't actually read a Supreme Court decision, so they don't have a sense of them, nor how decisions (holdings) are used in law.

The passage you quoted is dicta (literally, from the Latin, “something said in passing”) that is not part of the holding of the case. Only parts of the decision that are relevant to the question before the Court have any legal precedent. As I previously pointed out, and the decision states at the very beginning, the question under consideration is whether or not immigration law applies to a church seeking to hire a rector/minister from another country. Everything not directly tied to that question is dicta (aka, observations made in passing).

So it is legal nonsense to claim that “the Supreme Court” claimed the United States is a “Christian nation.” An accurate and honest thing to say would be that Justice Brewer mentioned in passing that, in his opinion, the United States is a “Christian nation” in the case Holy Trinity v. United States (1892).

You see, this is about immigration of a Christian minister, not about whether or not the United States is officially a “Christian nation.”

That’s actually true. The main body of the Constitution itself makes the case for a secular state. The only reference to religion in the main body of the Constitution is a ban against religious tests for office. In other words, the government cannot write laws banning either religious or irreligious people from public office.

No. The relevant portion of the First Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…​

In other words, Congress cannot favor religion or lack or religion (neutrality), nor ban the free exercise of religion or lack of religion. It is the separation of lawmaking power (aka, Congress) from enforcing or prohibiting the religious consciences of the citizens of the United States.

Sure. Rhode Island had separation of church and state from the beginning, but state level churches were becoming unpopular at the time of the drafting of the Constitution because of both persecution of minority religious beliefs (Baptists were among the groups persecuted) as well as the taxing of citizens to maintain churches that held beliefs not held by many in the various colonies. Most colonies disestablished their state churches within a few years after the First Amendment was ratified, with Massachusetts holding out the longest, finally disestablishing their state church in 1833.

Since the passage of the 14th Amendment, all citizens born in the United States are now federal citizens, not just citizens of states, and the First Amendment protections apply directly to everyone. That's why state churches could continue to exist after the First Amendment was ratified, but cannot now. Since the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868, a state church would be brazenly unconstitutional.

Actually, it came directly from Jesus. He made a big distinction between political entities and the Kingdom of God. The two were not to be joined, nor is the church supposed to use the power of the sword (government coercion) to attempt to advance the cause of Christ. That’s why Christian nationalism and the idea of a “Christian nation” is so flawed and dangerous.

Sure. I would prefer that citizens of the US would follow Christ in discipleship, but the government can only harm that goal. The Kingdom of God doesn't need to be propped up by human governments. It is idolatrous to think that God is so weak He needs kings and politicians to help Him get along in the world.

Outward submission to earthly governments (“lawful” or not), when possible, is a pragmatic thing. God has allowed governments, but the disciple of Christ should give devotion to government or politicians that belongs only to Christ. Sometimes Christians have to resist laws that actively force Christians to do evil. But societies are changed by the witness of the gospel (in word and deed), not by making laws.

Sure, but the methods for doing that DO NOT involve the government.

{quote]…John Edwards and all other Puritans were idolaters, what a revelation![/quote]
They were right about some thing and extremely wrong about other things. And the Puritans didn’t mind persecuting Baptists, thinking they were doing God a favor.

No it wasn’t, that's a common myth tossed around in Christian circles. Moreover, English Common Law was separate from Canon Law (religious law).