A Christian Nation?

Vdad, why are you a conservative? and what does conservatism mean to you?

Thanks for the link & letting me know you are posting again. Thanks for helping out with your recent posts. Your perspective is always welcome even when we disagree.

I am a conservative because I believe man already has the answers, and that man has thrived most when adhering to certain principles.

Those principles stay close to those laid out in Christianity, but inherent in that Christianity is a focus and reverence of God, not in state.

Further, if we worship the state, we cannot worship God. If we worship the state, it will consume us and limit our freedoms.

Thus, two prongs develop as to my conservatism. One is a focus on social aspects that encourage positive and loving homes, as largely outlined (but not limited to) in Ephesians (discussion of man and wife and their roles). The second is one free from the overt and excessive interference of the state.

To expand, historically, whenever man has given way to his lusts unrestrained, society tumbles. When the state grows opppressive, society tumbles. Taking that with the message as given in the Bible, if our focus is on Christ, we will not allow our lusts to rule, and we will not focus too much on the state.

In terms of governance, if Christians focus too much on it and try too much to tilt government in their favor, are they forgetting to worship Christ first? I think it is entirely possible for that to happen, and even in so doing, they take government too far in the direction of oppression, even if to our favor.

Either way, and either prong, I find myself conservative.

I hope that answer is understandable.

This was a very solid and thoughtful post, Virginia. I think you hit on all the right points. Over half the founding fathers were indeed Christian and history does document that shifts in Christianity led to the development of many American principles, but the founding fathers had just come from a land with a tyrannical king and a corrupt church. They understood that placing power in the hands of a king or a priest was not a good idea. Not only should government be limited in its power, but religion should be as well. They trusted the individual to determine their own faith and granted them the freedom to worship as they saw fit so long as it did not impede the natural rights of others.

This is an important concept, having a country that never declared an official religion. This way faith and religion are left at the community level and not imposed from the top as they were throughout most of the Middle Ages. It is a valid fact that religious communities are more orderly because they're more close knit. Imposing it from the top would destroy that sense of community and corrupt the very principles of faith itself.

Christianity may be the majority in this country, but that doesn't entitle it to dictate policies to everyone else. The rights of Christians are just as valid as the rights of muslims, atheists, and scientologists. To favor one over the other is to defy the very principles of religous liberty.

For the most part, I agree. ALthough, despite my post, I hesitate to say they envisioned a nation ruled by the non-religious.

I don't think that was really considered a possibility. They still relied on the virtues of man, which was for the most part Christian virtue.

But they did seek to create a place free from a single church as the law of the land. Even with that, many states had official religions...

...and there is much with which I agree, although I am skeptical of your primary conclusion that "This great country has never been or never was intented to be a stricly Christian nation." And that may also depend on what you mean by "a strictly Christian nation." I look forward to your further exposition, however, I will warn you: failure to provide adequate documentation in the words of the Founders themselves will lead to a rejection of your hypothesis. Cf.:

http://theinterface.blogtownhall.com/2009/02/22/how_not_to_ do_historical_research.thtml

Your post is very interesting. I came a cross this piece this morning and adds some interesting angles to what you have said.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0310/p09s01-coop.html

I am not sure what it all means, but it is interesting.

P.S.

Here is something I think you will really enjoy.

http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid271552717?b ctid=1913313052

Cheers and God bless.

Don't get me wrong-- I think Christianity was the predominate faith and the assumed faith of the founders.

My understanding is that there is little evidence to suggest they intended to create a directly Christian nation.

By that, I mean they did not mean to create something akin to the heads of state that held to a specific brand of Christianity, or any religion at that. They meant to leave that open for states to decide. Remember, many states did in fact have official religions.

I also cannot stress enough the importance the importance the founders put on faith in the creation of the new system of government. Without a solid understanding of its morals and values, the founders clearly thought the nation would fall. There are far too many quotes saying this to discount this belief.

But, the laws they created were law of men, even though the laws were to be upheld and enforced by Christian men, and by a Christian populace.

I think we will see some significant changes coming down the road, but I think he over states his case.

That said, I think evangelical churches, by and large, need to reevaulate their methods. Too many do not fully equip its members and are too focused on the emotive side of faith.

There is a lot of meat behind the worship.

I am not sure whether he is "making a case" or voicing concerns. Like I said I don't know what to make of it but it is interesting.

How did you like that rendition of "Amazing Grace"?

I thought it was wonderful.

if making his case was the right wording, but his point is that the evangelical church will be ssing drastic changed. I still think this is a bit over the top, but cannot deny it does need to change in some specific ways.

Alas...

The Il Divo version of Amazing Grace was very nice indeed. Thank you for sending...

I too don't believe the Founders intended to create a nation where the official religion was Christianity of any stripe. I think they wanted to create a nation where men were free to worship as they would and respect the worship of others. I think they felt this was best done by Christians and that a "virtuous and religious people" (to borrow Adams' words) were the only ones who could really accomplish such freedom.

I'm not sure where we started to go wrong. Sometime in the 40s or 50s, I think. My parents' generation felt very comfortable with the idea of other religions worshipping differently than they did and they were also quite comfortable wtih saying why they didn't worship that way. You could be religious, you could be non-religious, you could disagree and still be friends. Then something changed. I doubt it was as sudden as it seems. It somehow because standard practice not to discuss religion or politics in this country. Not that it took hold in my mother's family. They still held to the old way (thank God for civil non-religious folks who like to debate). People began to complain if you voiced a religious belief in public. How dare you infringe upon their right to avoid religion? Where'd that come from? Not the constitution, not the writings of the Founders. The very fact that they were comfortable writing about religion says it didn't come from them.

And, now, here we are. And, I don't know the solution to returning the nation to a place of civility where freedom is allowed. Certainly the way of the "religious right" (though I'm not wholly sure of the definition of that) hasn't worked, but if this country is to remain a truly free country, it is absolutely necessary that those with religious beliefs have the same rights to the public square as anyone else holding an idea. Anything less is not Constitutional and certainly is not what the Founders envisioned, if you go by what they wrote outside of the Constitution.