Lmao how am I angry?
I wrote what I wrote. Your emotional reaction to it is not my problem. Disagree all you want but disagreeing doesn’t mean I have to change my mind about my stances.
On Founding Principles:
-
Freedom of Religion: While it’s true that freedom of religion is enshrined in the First Amendment, suggesting that the founders were against any religious influence in governance ignores historical context. Many founders were influenced by Christian thought, and the public sphere at the time of the founding was predominantly Christian. The separation of church and state was designed to prevent the establishment of a state church, not to erase religious influence from public life entirely.
-
Christian Influence: The claim that the country was established in defiance of religious governance oversimplifies the motivations of the founders. While they aimed to prevent the kind of religious oppression they experienced in Europe, many still believed in a society informed by Christian morals. This is evident in their writings, speeches, and the very fact that the Constitution was signed “in the Year of our Lord.”
On the Role of Religion:
-
Imposition of Practice: The argument that declaring Christianity as the official religion would impose its practice might be overstated. The proposal mentions that Christianity “will not impose its practice,” suggesting an acknowledgment of personal freedom. Current examples like the pledge or currency reflect cultural heritage rather than forced practice.
-
Morality of the Bible: While your view on the morality presented in the Bible is valid from a personal perspective, many interpret these texts differently. The proposal could be seen as recognizing the historical and cultural impact of Christianity rather than endorsing every biblical law or narrative.
On Language:
-
Official Language: English has been the de facto official language for government operations, not just for unity but for practical reasons. Ensuring all governmental services are in English does not erase other languages but provides a common standard for communication, which is crucial in a diverse nation for legal and civic purposes.
-
Native Tongue: The idea of reverting to an ancient language like Sumerian for unity is impractical. English was chosen in the early days of the nation for its utility among various settlers, not to suppress other languages but to facilitate broader communication.
On Oversight:
- Oversight vs. Freedom: The creation of an oversight committee to ensure compliance with the law does not inherently contradict protecting freedoms. Such a body could ensure that while English is used in official capacities, personal and private use of other languages remains unrestricted. Similarly, for religion, the committee could ensure that the state’s recognition of Christianity does not lead to the suppression of other religious practices, focusing instead on cultural acknowledgment rather than religious enforcement.
Conclusion:
The proposal aims not to homogenize or oppress but to recognize and integrate the historical and cultural foundations of the United States into its legal framework in a manner that respects individual freedoms. This recognition can coexist with robust protections for all citizens’ rights to practice their religion and speak their language in private life. The key would be in the implementation—ensuring that this acknowledgment enhances cultural identity without diminishing personal liberties or diversity.
(post deleted by author)
On Persecution and Christianity:
- People vs. Ideology: Yes, people persecute others, but ideologies can provide frameworks that either encourage or discourage such behavior. Christianity, like any religion, has been interpreted in ways that have led to persecution, but it also contains teachings of love, forgiveness, and peace. The problem often lies in how these teachings are applied by individuals or groups but in today’s America that is not a predominantly problematic issue whatsoever.
On the Separation of Church and State:
- Founders’ Intent: While the founders did separate church and state, many of them believed in the moral influence of religion on society. The separation was to ensure religious freedom, not to eliminate religious influence entirely. The proposal you’re critiquing seems to recognize Christianity culturally, not politically, which might not contradict the founders’ vision if done correctly.
On Religious Texts and Morality:
- Criticism of Religious Texts: Your critique of the morality in religious texts, including the Bible, is noted. However, interpreting these texts literally without considering historical context, allegorical meanings, or the evolution of societal norms can lead to an oversimplified view. Many Christians today interpret these texts in ways that align with contemporary ethical standards.
On Personal Freedom:
- Cultural Recognition vs. Imposition: The proposal might aim to recognize Christianity’s role in American culture, not to impose it. Cultural acknowledgment doesn’t necessitate personal adherence. The concern about being subjected to dogma in everyday life is valid, but the proposal could be structured to ensure it doesn’t overstep into personal freedoms.
On Cultural Dominance:
- Comparisons to Sharia Law: The fear of situations like Sharia law taking over is understandable, but equating cultural recognition with the imposition of religious law is a leap. The proposal should be about celebrating heritage, not enforcing religious practices or laws. The key is in how it’s implemented to avoid overreach.
On Individual Beliefs:
- Respect for Diverse Beliefs: It’s important to respect your right to reject Christian dogma. The proposal should ideally aim to coexist with this diversity, ensuring that no one is forced to conform but rather that there’s an acknowledgment of the cultural impact of Christianity on American history and identity.
If the United States were to lose its foundational elements like its predominant language and the cultural significance of its religious heritage, it risks diluting the very essence of its national identity. Language, particularly English, acts as a unifying force, enabling communication across its vast and diverse population, fostering a shared understanding necessary for governance, legal systems, and social cohesion. Religion, especially Christianity in this context, has played a pivotal role in shaping American values, ethics, and community standards, contributing to a collective moral framework.
Without these core fabrics, the nation could face:
- Fragmentation of Identity: A shared language and cultural heritage provide a common ground for citizens, grounding them in a collective identity. The erosion of these elements might lead to a fragmented society where unity becomes elusive, making it difficult to forge a common vision or agree on national priorities.
- Weakened National Cohesion: National identity is not just about borders; it’s about shared experiences, history, and cultural narratives. Losing these could weaken the sense of belonging and loyalty to the nation, which are crucial for collective action and national defense.
- Legal and Political Instability: Laws and political systems often reflect cultural values and historical context. Without these shared cultural references, there might be increased challenges in law-making, enforcement, and public compliance, potentially leading to instability or governance issues.
- Vulnerability to External Influence: A nation with a diluted identity might be more susceptible to external cultural or political domination, where foreign entities could more easily influence or control its direction due to the lack of a strong, unified national character.
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.
No. This is a blatant and clear violation of the “letter” of the First Amendment. There is no interpretation that would allow for this.
1 Like
This is a direct violation of the 1st Amendment.
This unconstitutional proposal has no place on this forum.
‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.’
“…no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his two religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge or affect their civil capacities.” - James Madison
2 Likes
I do appreciate your points of concern about national cohesion; I agree that it is important for a nation to have a comfortable level of camaraderie. However, I fully believe that implementing religion of any sort into our governing bodies will create more division than cohesion. I was raised Methodist, and I am grateful that when I decided that the ideology didn’t reflect my values in life, I had the choice to decide not to incorporate it into my adult life. What you are proposing may be fine for a while for most people, but lawmaking is ever-changing, and things rarely get rolled back. There will be extremists that weasel their way into powerful positions and maybe a decade, maybe ten but eventually the laws you are proposing get stretched and molded and adjusted in ways that can foreseeably end with legal prosecution for an <insert non/religionist here> that tells an evangelical fundamentalist that their ideas about how to raise a family do not fit with their idea of a safe and happy family.
Spreading Christian values and beliefs depends solely on Christians alone. If the religion can stand up to question and the self-described Christians that spread messages of division and in some cases outright hatred while engaging in adulterous, deviant behaviors that are described as sins in their own doctrine can ever be sorted out, then the religion itself can hold up this cultural fabric without any help from the government. This is how it should be. Among all of these Christian denominations, there is a wide range of disagreement, which is why there are so many different factions as it is, so which ones influence the law? The incredibly wealthy mega-churches that also seem to have the greatest amount of corruption? Likely.
I am already surrounded by Christian influence every day. I live in a small town that has so many churches the sign into town has been bragging about it for 40 years. And in my opinion, for the most part, these are the best examples of the religion available. They help the community they exist in, yet I am still largely influenced by the megachurches that are nowhere near me taking millions from their congregations for the elite few who are living in luxury while spouting scripture without doing anything for the people who crave structured community and can benefit from having the kind of help a church can provide.
The American people, particularly the governing body, can not, in good faith, even consider creating legal support for the Christian industry while corruption exists in its depths. And there has always been corruption, I don’t see that changing any time soon. Corruption is one root of my disagreement. Power corrupts and religion can be incredibly powerful.
1 Like
I want to emphasize that, similar to how Islamic countries maintain a strong, rooted identity to safeguard against foreign influence, the United States can also establish a national identity that commands respect while not requiring worship. This identity would mean you don’t have to be a Christian or make statements of faith to participate in American societal norms, but it sets clear boundaries to prevent any religious group from subverting our government or culture.
I lived in Kuwait and Afghanistan when I contracted for the government. In Kuwait you can go to jail as a foreigner/Christian for violating Ramadan rules of eating in public during the day.
At first I was angry cause I was like “I’m hungry, I’m gonna eat.” But then I understood, that’s the kind of behavior that we tolerate in the US. They have a little more structure and discipline about certain things like that and it glues them together as a society.
I still hated every second of it though and not the extent of what I’m suggesting we should do.
For instance, just as Christianity does not have the right to enforce its moral views like prohibiting abortions through legislation, other religions should also be barred from imposing their own legal systems, like Sharia law, within the U.S. So, essentially prohibiting the chance of a situation like I described from ever happening even as an officially Christian nation.
We should embrace the version of Christianity that is part of our cultural fabric, which historically has been more about cultural influence than political power. This Christianity isn’t about radical actions like those of the Westboro Baptist Church, which, while offensive, doesn’t threaten the nation’s legal or structural integrity.
This cultural identity serves as our ‘red line’—a boundary line akin to what exists in Israel, where Judaism holds a predominant cultural and political position, or in Islamic countries where religious practices are regulated to maintain cultural dominance.
The point isn’t about forcing Christianity or Jesus upon anyone but about safeguarding our core cultural values from being disrupted by external forces. An example can be drawn from Japan, where despite high levels of atheism, the cultural reverence for Buddhist traditions persists, illustrating how cultural identity can exist independently of personal belief.
We should not entertain laws that favor one religious group over another, like proposed antisemitism laws, which seem to aim for special protections rather than equal rights. The UK’s experience with cultural erosion due to unchecked immigration highlights the importance of maintaining cultural integrity.
This isn’t about oppression but about protection and preservation of our cultural heritage. Christianity, with its historical emphasis on individual freedom in the American context, offers a framework that supports this cultural identity. Even if you don’t believe in the stories, embracing Christianity culturally can serve as a unifying symbol, much like the flag, which now seems less sufficient to unite us.