Christian American Unity Act

Liberty
1

“The Christian American Unity Act”

Objective:
This legislative proposal aims to reaffirm the Christian heritage and English language as foundational elements of American identity, culture, and governance, as originally intended by the Founding Fathers, while ensuring freedom of religion and language in private domains.

I. Introduction

  • Background: The United States was founded with a significant Christian influence, reflected in its early governance, laws, and societal norms. English has been the predominant language, facilitating unity, communication, and civic engagement across the nation.
  • Purpose: To legally recognize Christianity as the official religion and English as the official language to preserve and promote cultural and national identity.

II. Definitions

  • Official Religion: Christianity, encompassing its various denominations, is recognized as the state religion but will not impose its practice.
  • Official Language: English is the sole language for all federal government communications, legal documents, and public services.

III. Provisions

A. Religion:

  1. Establishment of Christianity:

    • Christianity is declared the official religion of the United States, symbolizing the spiritual and moral compass of the nation.
    • Public ceremonies, national holidays, and official state events will reflect Christian practices and values.

  2. Freedom of Worship:

    • All citizens retain the right to practice their religion privately or in places of worship without interference, as long as these practices do not conflict with or undermine the official status of Christianity.
    • Religious education will be supported for Christianity in public schools, with optional courses for other religions.

  3. Public Display:

    • Christian symbols, scriptures, or practices can be displayed or performed in public spaces without restriction.

B. Language:

  1. English as the Official Language:

    • All federal government operations, official documents, legal proceedings, public education, and public services will be conducted in English.
    • No federal funding or support for translations or multilingual services in any language other than English.

  2. Private Sector Flexibility:

    • Private businesses and entities may choose to offer services in other languages at their own discretion and expense.

  3. Education:

    • English language instruction will be emphasized in the educational system, with English as the medium of instruction from kindergarten through college.

IV. Implementation

  • Legislative Actions:

    • Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or new federal legislation to establish Christianity and English as official.
    • Creation of an oversight committee to ensure compliance with these laws while protecting religious and linguistic freedoms.

  • Phased Introduction:

    • Immediate for government and public sector operations.
    • Gradual implementation in education and public services to allow for transition.

V. Enforcement

  • Penalties for federal entities not complying with the language policy.
  • Legal Recourse for citizens who feel their religious freedoms or English language rights are infringed upon by governmental actions.

VI. Conclusion

This proposal seeks to honor the historical, cultural, and foundational roles that Christianity and the English language have played in the United States. By enacting these measures, we aim to strengthen national unity, cultural identity, and the values that have shaped the American spirit since the nation’s inception.

Dangers of losing core fabric elements of society such as language and religion

If a foreign entity or group gains sufficient control over a nation’s political, economic, media, educational, and cultural institutions, effectively subverting its sovereignty, several outcomes could emerge:

Immediate Effects:

  • Loss of Sovereignty: The country would no longer be able to make independent decisions in its national interest, with policies potentially aligning more with the interests of the foreign power.

  • Policy Shifts: Economic, foreign, and domestic policies might change to favor the foreign entity, potentially leading to exploitation of resources, realignment in international relations, or changes in internal governance that serve the invaders’ interests.

  • Suppression of Dissent: There would likely be a clampdown on freedom of expression, assembly, and press. Dissent would be met with censorship, propaganda, or even persecution, using the very institutions they control.

Societal Impacts:

  • Cultural Erosion: The invaders might attempt to dilute or replace national cultural identities, traditions, and values with those favorable to their own.

  • Economic Dependency: The economy could become increasingly dependent on the foreign power, possibly leading to economic policies that benefit the invaders more than the local population.

  • Education and Indoctrination: Educational systems would likely be used to indoctrinate future generations into accepting the foreign dominance, altering historical narratives, and shaping public opinion favorably towards the new rulers.

Political Landscape:

  • Puppet Governments: The political system might be filled with puppet leaders who serve the interests of the foreign power while maintaining a facade of national governance.

  • Erosion of Democracy: If the country was democratic, elections might become sham processes where the outcome is predetermined, or democratic institutions might be dismantled in favor of authoritarian rule.

Resistance and Counteractions:

  • Underground Movements: Despite control, there would likely be resistance movements, possibly developing into insurgencies if suppression becomes severe. These movements might operate covertly, using tactics like civil disobedience, information warfare, or even armed resistance.

  • International Reaction: Other nations might react through diplomatic channels, imposing sanctions, providing support to resistance movements, or forming coalitions against the occupying force.

  • Guerrilla Warfare: Historical precedents show that even with control over major institutions, an occupying force can face prolonged guerrilla warfare from a populace unwilling to accept foreign rule.

Long-Term Consequences:

  • Economic Decline: The nation could experience economic downturns due to mismanagement, corruption, or economic policies not aligned with local needs.

  • Brain Drain: Intellectuals, activists, and professionals might flee the country, leading to a loss of human capital.

  • Cultural and Identity Loss: Over generations, the original national identity might weaken or be lost, replaced by the imposed culture or a hybrid that no longer reflects the indigenous heritage.

  • Potential for Collapse: In extreme cases, the lack of legitimacy, combined with internal conflict and international pressure, could lead to the collapse of the government structure, possibly resulting in civil war or state fragmentation.

Recovery and Restoration:

  • International Intervention: If the situation becomes dire enough, international intervention might occur, either through peacekeeping missions, economic aid, or support for regime change.

  • Rebuilding National Identity: Post-liberation efforts would focus on restoring national institutions, culture, and identity, which would be a long and complex process involving truth commissions, political reforms, and rebuilding civil society.

  • Legal Reckoning: Often, there would be legal actions against collaborators, trials for war crimes or crimes against humanity, and efforts to reclaim stolen assets.

This scenario describes a dire outcome for any nation, emphasizing the importance of vigilance, strong institutions to prevent such subversion from reaching the point of total control.

In essence, without a robust national identity anchored in language and cultural heritage, a country risks losing the conceptual glue that holds its society together, diminishing its ability to function as a cohesive, sovereign entity with distinct borders and laws. This erosion could lead to a state where the country becomes a mere geographical entity, lacking the cultural depth and historical continuity that define a nation’s soul and purpose that can be subversively taken over by any stronger ideological nefarious entity.

Conclusion:

The discussion should center around how Christianity can be recognized culturally without infringing on freedoms. The goal isn’t to convert or enforce beliefs but to honor a significant part of the nation’s cultural fabric. Ensuring that this recognition does not lead to the marginalization of other beliefs or the imposition of Christian practices on non-believers is crucial to maintaining the balance between cultural heritage and personal freedom.

Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance is an act of patriotism, not a declaration of faith. It’s a moment when Americans, regardless of their personal beliefs, come together to honor the country’s values and the freedoms it provides. The phrase “under God” in the Pledge doesn’t mandate belief in any deity but rather acknowledges the historical and cultural backdrop against which the nation was formed. To stand and recite it is to celebrate the unity and liberty of the United States, where one’s belief or lack thereof in Jesus or any religion is protected. It’s about respecting the flag and the symbols that represent the sacrifices made for our rights to free speech, religion, and expression. This act of allegiance is a testament to our collective identity as Americans, reminding us that we stand for the ideals of freedom, justice, and unity, even amidst our diverse personal convictions.

3 Likes
2

The Constitution was more a result of the enlightenment than christianity.

You seem like you’ve done some research on this, but I would encourage you to do more on the individual founders, especially their writings on religion. There are some interesting stories about how they spent a couple of hours arguing over whether or not to open with a prayer and which religion would do it if they did in one of the first meetings. They were absolutely wholeheartedly against choosing a national religion. That’s why they used the generic word “Creator”, as a fill in the blank, instead of God or Jehovah or something more specific.

The same goes for languages. They were all polyglots and believed that choosing one national language was a terrible idea.

2 Likes
3

I agree from an ideological “perfect world” scenario.

But, just as the Weimar Republic experienced significant cultural shifts that contributed to its instability, preserving our national identity through Christianity and English as our official language and religion is essential. This ensures that we maintain a cohesive cultural framework that has been foundational to our society, preventing the dilution of our core values and traditions by external influences.

Which is pretty evident is actively happening right now.

4

It’s not about ideology, it’s about legality. A law must hold up to scrutiny against the founders intent and writings during the Founding Era. I think there may be some room to discuss an official federal “moral framework” that would act as a guide in the country’s general motivation, purpose and direction, but in a way the constitution and bill of rights is exactly that and we havent been using them for at least 100 years or so.

5

Exactly. If we were honoring the intent and spirit and letter of the law then we wouldn’t have 2nd amendment infringements like we do nowadays.

The problem is that the founding fathers didn’t take into account that foreign influence and tyranny could be accomplished politically/subversively and diplomatically. They probably just considered a belligerent Britain coming back and a fight ensuing overtly.

I don’t think they ever considered something like a foreign nation like Israel (which didnt exist at the time) could be capable of infiltrating our system of government and literally buy every single politician so they can do their bidding for them. But that’s where we are today.

6

On the contrary, all of the current psyops campaigns and more were occurring even before the revolutionary war. Europe was embroiled in the Seven Years war, what we call the French and Indian War. All countries involved committed what we today would call severe human rights violations, mass disinformation, mass executions, mass spying and surveillance, and the founders used the same tactics during the revolution.

7

So what you’re saying is that none of this is new. Yet we fell for it through the years even though our founding fathers were aware of it. And its too far gone to take it back unless we resort to good ol founding father’s strategies to take back control and restore the constitutional balance of the nation?

8

I was only responding to the part where you said

“The problem is that the founding fathers didn’t take into account that foreign influence and tyranny could be accomplished politically/subversively and diplomatically. They probably just considered a belligerent Britain coming back and a fight ensuing overtly.”

I’m not sure what you mean by

"
And its too far gone to take it back unless we resort to good ol founding father’s strategies to take back control and restore the constitutional balance of the nation?
"

9

You know exactly what I meant.

10

No it was actually pretty vague.

11

How did the founding fathers take control and establish our country?

12

It seems as if you’re advocating for watering the tree of liberty because you believe Israel has secretly taken control of our government. Good luck with that, but I’m out.

13

Thats what I thought.

14

I’m not sure where you’re going with this conversation compared to your original post and topic.

15

So the nation can’t be subversively taken over by foreign powers/ethno-religious states.

Just like Japan.

America must remain officially Christian and English speaking. Whatever you do at home must not impact this balance culturally/societally.

Thats as clear as its gonna get, bud.

16

This is based in falsehood. Freedom of religion is part of our founding documents and the separation of church and state is important because any religion in a powerful position has historically taught us and continues to teach us that people will be mistreated, harmed and persecuted under religious law… that has consistently been a ‘matter of time’ situation before it all goes wrong.

No, it has been a while since I was in school, but if memory serves i was taught that the country was established in direct defiance of such ideas.
The idea that religion of any sort facilitates unity is laughable and I see no historically significant rhetoric that such an implementation would encourage any diverse population to conform in peace and unity.

But it WILL impose its practice, it is happening right now and has been for decades. Examples being “in god we trust” on our currency, “one nation under god” in our pledge of allegience and the latest spats involving edging religion into public schools.

In my opinion, the morality of the bible is atrocious, with abhorrent levels of what are considered here in the United States to be heinous crimes. I do not want to live in a world where people are property (deut20:10), children suffer ultimate punishment (deut21:20) it is acceptable to get rid of huge swaths of people who disagree with ideology (gen7), rabbits chew cuds (deut14:7), bats are birds, and insects have 4 legs (lev11:19-20).
These are just a few examples of parts of the bible I personally find morally problematic.

Why shouldn’t the official language be the country’s native tongue? Maybe we can’t even pin down the oldest? Migration has been happening since the dawn of time, so maybe we should all go back to ancient Sumerian and call it a day. Language constantly morphs and changes with cultures and demographics, why on earth would anyone think it is okay to take something so intimate as their language from them… oh right, the topic is religion. That wasn’t originally Christian either.

I am totally okay with this. Buisness that treats people like this should absolutely have the opportunity to wither into obscurity based on their own choices.

There it is… oversight to ensure compliance… which directly contradicts protecting religious and linguistic freedoms.

No thanks, you can practice your religious freedoms in your own life as is your right, everyone else is not your business.

1 Like
17

Christianity has never persecuted anyone. Historically speaking it has always had to defend itself from attack. Yes, even the crusades. They were a direct response to the islamic conquest of the Mediterranean that raped and enslaved my ancestors.

Second, Various sources suggest that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention, a significant majority were Christian. Its been said out of 55 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 52 were Christian, with breakdowns into different Christian denominations. Another source indicates that around 51 out of approximately 55 Founding Fathers were Christian.

So, yes. You’re wrong there as well.

If you believe the morality of the bible is atrocious then I have really bad news about the Quran and Talmud.

If you want to be an atheist. That’s fine. This proposal aims to establish English and Christianity as identities for our nation. It is not imposed on anyone personally outside of formal public education.

But if you’re not gonna be intellectually consistent about your morality deconstructionism and regurgjtate this subversive communist jewish rhetoric, then there’s no conversation to be had because people like you want to use this moral whataboutism that only seeks to disrupt and erode our national identity which is worth maintaining and fighting for.

If we don’t have those fabrics of society to glue us together then we have nothing. That’s how we end up being hijacked and sucked dry by countries like Israel.

18

This is unbelievable. 1. People persecute people, always have and always will. 2. I have eyes, I can literally see Christian preachers persecuting people today. Not all of them, I’m not saying all Christians are bad, but i stand firm in that the ideology is bad.

I didn’t say they weren’t christian, I said they insisted that church and state be separated and that is literally why we are here right now discussing it. If our founding fathers wanted the church in power in this country it would be.

The topic of the post was christianity. If you think I read the bible and somehow think that a different Abrahamic religion is any better you are absolutely mistaken. They all came from the same place, in many instances a place of hate for neighbors and women to the point of brutality. I reiterate, the bible is morally atrocious and I don’t think for one second that we as a society should be teaching our children that they are victims of hate because someone disagrees with them at best and at worst that it is acceptable to violently supress your opponents.

You assume that I am atheist because I outright reject your dogma. I’m not Christian, but I appreciate that you have a right to be. All I want is to not be subjected to your dogma in my face every day of my life because YOU think it is important. At least half the population of OUR country would disagree with you.

You are literally trying to pry open the door to allow situations like sharia law to take over. If you think that is an over exaggeration look at England. This is how it starts and then it keeps getting compounded. We are a free country in a sensible manner, there is no reason you need everyone in the country to be forced to conform to your standards for you to be happy.

Live your religious life in peace and happiness, but don’t you dare tell me I have to conform to your dogma after I have already extensively and critically studied it and deemed it unworthy to have in mine.

19

This post is not worth your time. He just wants to go to war with israel or start some sort of holy crusade / civil war in the u.s. and is obviously very angry.

Or he’s cia / fbi plant trying to incite violence. Hard to tell.

Either way, there’s no point giving him and his post anymore attention.

2 Likes
20

That’s a completely fair point yet all the same I would feel like part of my own problem if i read something I would consider a huge discomfort within my own personal world and say nothing at all. :slight_smile: We only get to keep the freedoms we are afforded by exercising them!

1 Like