Yes, two nations that were hostile to Israel. Im guessing Moabites and Ammonites?
I’m bettin’ that even back then no one thought that Judaism was a denomination of Christianity.
And so?
So far, you’ve shown that you don’t know what non-denominational means, and that absolutely no state religion actually meant states having declared religions,
Delaware’s constitution, for example, required government officials to “profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost.” North Carolina barred anyone “who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion” from serving in the government
Wanna go to ‘free choice of religion’ and handwave away the banning of Native American religions and their expression?
Oh so a nitpick about definition of “denominations” ( a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices) in a list including several items. That is the way to win debates. And even a mild and wrong insult. Not to mention “denomination” is a synonym for “Faith” “church” Creed, persuasion, cult and so forth.
In no way were the founding fathers or Constitution “secular” as you claimed. You were wrong. I have proven it.
Secular as in- denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
They had faith, but it was more of a belief in a Supreme Being, instead of any one Church, faith, denomination, creed, persuasion, cult, etc.
And I have no idea of what you mean by -
Because i said nothing at all like that.
Umm, the definitions are what actually matter. Not an insult, please, what religion is Judaism a denomination of exactly?
I never said they were secular, I said they, by all appearances, were setting up a secular government. So congrats on proving something that was never the question!
And I don’t have the first clue what you mean by it.
Are we going with ‘Well, state doesn’t mean State!’?
They were more than happy to allow the state constitutions to violate what they seemed to be advocating in the Federal Constitution.
To be very clear, what they actually did and what they said they wanted are at odds with each other and I’m more than happy to hold them to the standards they advocated but didn’t put into practice.
( a religious organization whose congregations are united in their adherence to its beliefs and practices) …n “denomination” is a synonym for “Faith” “church” Creed, persuasion, cult and so forth.
So you are using Denomination under one limited definition, to try and prove a point. And your point was meaningless anyway.
No, in fact they wrote that clause because States like Delaware had religious tests. Read my cite.
Still wrong.
@DrDeth: what do you believe secular means? Because, a government with freedom of religion and separation of Church and State is inherently a secular government. Said government is not using religion, nor is it controlled by a religion.
Funny that you left this part out,
people from several different Christian denominations
and this,
Methodists, Baptists, and other Christian denominations.
Imma ask again, in my bestest Vincent LaGuardia Gambini,
What… religion… is Judiasm… a denomination… of?
Cool! Then you’ll have no trouble pointing me to the parts of the Constitution of the United States that establish a non secular government.
Pro Tip: The thingy that starts with Congress shall make no law? That ain’t it.
Far too often folks conflate secular with atheist . . . and they ain’t the same thing.
I’ve got to argue that @DrDeth is mostly right here. The founders included both Deists and ministers. In between, there were far more devout believers than atheists. As a whole they were firmly against a government like that of England’s with an official church. The entries in the Constitution barring religious tests served that purpose.
Nevertheless, various Protestant denominations - yes, that is the correct word - controlled every colony except Maryland, and that control extended to the states. Some of the freethinkers like Jefferson did indeed call for a separation of church and state, and he also made noises about the acceptance of Muslims as well as Catholics and Jews.
These writings had little sway over what the federal government or the state governments or the local governments did in reality. The world was set up for Protestants with other beliefs grudgingly accepted - as long as they didn’t try anything drastic, like run for office or propose laws based on their beliefs or take their holy days off work.
The arrival of millions of Irish Catholics in the 1850s changed the political balance in many places, usually large cities, and Catholic populations from Italy and Poland and other European countries also gained political power. Always, at all times and in all places, these were wrested from Protestants only by numbers and, sometimes, force with the state and federal governments lagging behind because Catholics were minorities overall. Seven states still ban atheists from holding office. Please read that article. I hope it gives you as many chills or even nightmares as it did me.
Whether the founders created a secular government is not a yes or no question. It depends greatly on your definition of secular and also whether the wording itself is more important than reality. The Constitution does not include the word secular, just as it doesn’t mention other words like God and slavery, yet… reality. Under my interpretation, that the United States had a government that made Protestantism the default official religion was as much a reality as that English was the default official language, although that also is not mentioned in the Constitution.
I think it can be demonstrated you are both wrong in this contention. As well as the books I have advocated above, I will offer a link below and what ALL of these sources enforce is that the basis of United States Government is imbued with PLURALISM which has its foundation in secularism.
This is just one of many sources that can be provided. All opposing views are tarnished by the bias of personal faith. It seems to be very hard for some people to believe that the beliefs and ideals of other individuals are as valid as their own beliefs and ideals.
Near the end of this video he makes a reference to one of the sources I mentioned above- but also a different one. I highly recommend you consume those sources before arriving at an conclusion.
I do not wish to criticize the faith of DrDeth in the least, but I am not willing to let his faith – or anyone else’s to establish policies that override the rights and free will of those with different beliefs or no spiritual beliefs. Everyone is entitled to believe as they see fit (as long as it does not do harm to another). Everyone may live according the those beliefs they hold. What they are NOT allowed to do is make others live by those morals, those values through passing laws or through social norms that contradict their own (benign) moral views. (Abortion fits rather snugly in this concern at the moment.)
In addition to the above . . .
ThelmaLou was kind enough to start this thread more than a year ago because of a concern over certain sects (not denominations- it transcends through many denominations, some of which believe other denominations in the group are cults), certain sects are trying to claim geographic areas “for God”.
They pray over properties and cast out demons and claim and entire region to be set aside for the purposes of their God. It is roughly (in my view) similar to the Christian version of those who fear being placed under Sharia Law. Both Christian Laws and Sharia Laws are not acceptable because even if everyone who lived in a certain town-- or a certain portion of a certain town may be on board with the laws being proposed - - - it would mean that any person who wanted to relocate to that area would be subject to not fair and just secular laws, but religious laws that do require living by an oath that every single individual may not hold personally.
Christians seem to be having a hard time taking the win. It IS well established that in these United States, citizens are free to hold any religious beliefs they so choose and to live by the tenets of that faith. But for so long in this nation, that has meant almost universally Christian faiths that those Christians are against allowing other minority religions to have the same rights they have.
For example, you may believe that any abortion is murder and a violation of your faith. Okay fine. You will never be forced to have an abortion yourself. You will also never never be forced to be married to a same sex partner. But perhaps I believe that Capital Punishment is murder due to sanctity of life issues (similar to how abortion is for you). I am very thankful to live in a society where the state very rarely imposes a death sentence and only after many appeals and other legal and moral remedies are invoked. These safeguards and more stringent proofs of guilt (including qualifying eye witness testimony in some cases) are still evolving. It is not what I would prefer perhaps-- but it is fair minded and built upon a desire to fairly impose justice without being cruel or unusual. It has a plural solution where the desire of one side to demonstrate a deterrent punishment is measured against a different view that believes human life is too precious to take under any circumstance.
My point is that saying this nation is a “Christian Nation” imbues it with powers and authorities it aught not have. It means all non-Christians are subject to unjust and preferential laws. No one is saying Christianity should be less than any other view- be it a different faith system, or no faith system (atheism). We are just saying that it also should not be more than any other faith, or lack of faith system. Period.
I will leave arguments about what business a church has building roads or raising an army (and navy) aside for now. But I will point out that at several times in the Old Testament when a theocracy turned out to be a horrible idea. Unfortunately (for me) I cannot let go of the fact that in the Judaeo/Christian view, King David- the murderous adulterer was seen as a man after God’s own heart while the faithful soldier and citizen Uriah was plotted against and killed for selfish intrigue without any praise is perhaps not the first book I choose to build a nation or a society upon. The argument that the one guy repented never impressed me as much as the other guy never, ever doing one thing to repent over. There, I have stated my bias – but I still want to give Christian believers as much input into the government as anyone else. Just not more!
Yes, the USA is not a Christian Nation. Nor is it a secular nation. It was founded on Deist principles- a general vague belief in a Supreme Being- but also an abhorrence of a State religion.
Nor am I a Christian. Perhaps maybe a agnostic doubter.
I am glad the USA is not a Christian nation. We all hope it remains so.
Until extremely recently, historically speaking, the straight while male Christian was the default example of an American citizen. None of these words or their opposites are included in the Constitution, but everybody involved in writing it, debating it, and voting it into existence understood their presence. Abigail Adams’ letters to John complaining about the absence of rights for women are famous evidence.
The default status of these groups ensured that legally and socially, non-members could be considered Others and made Lesser. Fights for their rights emerged at different times in different ways but show large parallels. To be an Other was to be the subject of intolerance, prejudice, bigotry, and oppression. Systemic bias along these lines pervaded the nation and showed up culturally and also in many laws. Rights were denied. The Constitution was of little help. Even the Bill of Rights made no difference. It didn’t apply to the states until the 14th Amendment and even after that, the courts have taken more than a century to rule in bits and pieces that elements also apply to states. The entirety still has not been adjudicated. Because the founders believed in a limited federal government, state and local governments were far more important in running peoples’ lives then. Today we have many states putting their default religious beliefs into law; this is exactly what the situation was like in the early 19th century.
The founders wanted a country for the default citizen. (Actually, their definition of default was narrower than the above. The vote was denied to those who did not have about $1000 worth of property. IIRC, only about 4% of the population qualified.) It is not historically accurate to say that they had in mind the democratic society we salute as the American achievement. They wanted rights for people like themselves, while making some allowances for Lessers because they were needed for society to function. Calling the founders vision pluralistic when it came to religion is a misuse of the word. By the late 18th century England allowed the open worship of Catholics and Jews, but limited their rights in other ways. If the U.S. is to be called pluralistic so must England but that negates the argument being made.
Well of course. But the founders did not believe this. As a first approximation, almost nobody in the history of the country believed this. Huge numbers of people today do not believe this. Claiming that this was at any time the norm is false.
Actually, that would be Pius XII: in 1950 he declared that Mary was assumed bodily into heaven rather than dying and being buried. Before that, Pius IX declared that Mary was conceived without Original Sin (Immaculate Conception, 1854).
Those are the only two occasions when a pope has made a declaration ex cathedra, meaning that it was an infallible statement.
When John Paul II declared that the discussion of priestly celibacy was “closed,” then Archbishop Ratzinger jumped in to declare that John Paul had spoken ex cathedra, but John Paul told him to sit down and that the declaration was not proclaimed ex cathedra. When Ratzinger was elevated to the papacy as Benedict XVI, he never re-visited the matter, so we are left with only two examples of papal infallibility.
Conservative commentators are in the habit of declaring that one opinion or another were proclaimed infallibly, but those are the only two examples we have.
I owe ThelmaLou a huge apology.
This thread was started to discuss Dominionism, also known as the Seven Mountains Mandate, but I have sometimes used this thread to discuss any old intersections between the US government and Christianity, even if they are not centered on Dominionism. Then I resurrected the thread and linked to articles that were connected to the OP only in that they addressed Christians involved with government- and it spun wildly out of control. Now we are discussing the origin story of the United States with no reference whatsoever to Dominionism. Thelma, I am sorry I took us so far afield.
I have been otherwise occupied for more than a day, but I have been meaning to quote the entire Original Post to try to get us back on track. Then this morning I received this article which DOES address the topic of the OP.
I am more than willing to discuss other aspects of the intersection of religion and government, but please let’s return this thread to its original purpose.
Here is an excerpt of the article that I linked above. I have a hard time no one has a comment on this particular portion of the article. All of it seems quite inflammatory to me.
The NAR also opposes freedom of religion, teaching instead that Christians must exert dominion over all aspects of our society. The NAR isn’t the only movement that espouses dominionism, but it may be the most influential. As explained by Wagner, who fathered the NAR:
“Dominion has to do with control. Dominion has to do with rulership. Dominion has to do with authority and subduing. And it relates to society. In other words, what the values are in Heaven need to be made manifest on earth. Dominion means being the head and not the tail. Dominion means ruling as kings.”
The specific pillars of society over which the NAR plans to “rule as kings” are seven-fold: 1. business, 2. government, 3. family, 4. religion, 5. media, 6. education, and 7. entertainment. NAR leaders call this the “Seven Mountains” mandate. Others call it heresy. (A good discussion can be found here.)
Derail bedamned - I did some link larnin’!
Thanks!
I am delighted that there has been some learning as a result of this thread, and we can all thank ThelmaLou for starting it. And going further, she never complained when it was driven off the rails.
But another quote from the most recent link that I provided, tells us something important. According to these people - - God does NOT want Joe Biden to be President of the United States:
Leading NAR apostles are blatantly pro-Trump, and claim their view is supported by God, whereas opposition to Trump is satanic. “Fighting with Trump is fighting God,” Wallnau declared in October 2020. “God does not want” Joe Biden to be president, Sheets claimed in December 2020. “All those witchcraft curses that did not land on Donald Trump are trying to take out his kids,” Wallnau raged in a 2017 video. In a 2017 tweet, he wrote, “Praying for the President-elect at Press Club in D.C. with Lou Engle. Prophetic location. Trump must keep wrecking media witchcraft.”
Their idea of what God prioritizes, and how he works is a bit surprising to me. I went to an Evangelical Bible College forty years ago, a school in a very dominate Pentecostal denomination – and I never saw shit this crazy!! (Although to be fair, most of my former classmates are fully invested in this . . . . belief[??])