don't want a Christian nation

The reason I don't want a Christian, or any religiusly exclusive, nation, is because someone besides me then holds the right to decide what Christian is. What if the nation decides that Christians may not baptize their infants. That will persecute the Persbyterians and Dutch Reformists. What if the nation decides that women may not wear pants, or that women must wear headcoverings? What if the nation decides that grape juice is unacceptible for communion? What if the nation decides that we can't refer to God as God, but only as Jehovah, or that we can't refer to Jesus as Jesus, but only as Joshua? What if the nation decides that rock music is forbidden in church? Or classical organ music? Or that a Christian may not marry a Jew? Or that a couple refusing to have children is a crime? Or that certain sexual positions between spouses is wrong?

Hmmm, so far, it sounds like Afghanistan under Talibal rule.

 

Johnv, how did you know that I would make those rules as Theocratic leader of America? Get out of my head!

 

I want a Christian Nation.

I can't imagine any Christian not wanting God to truly be in charge of the nations of the world.

And - frankly - even if I were NOT a Christian who wants God as the final authority - I WOULD want a nation that supported the moral laws of Christianity, and that supported families.

 

Even denominations and churches in the past
and present are capable of being at each others
throats and the Lord only knows how that would
escalate...it is better to be a light to the
world and not overthrow the government...I think
their is enough testimony on this board alone
how how once you get involved with politics you
get compromised very quickly.

Romans 13 is good enough for me...be that church
that moves into the wild west town and let your
light shine and serve.

 

TS, you make good points...but I think what they are not wanting is man deciding what is Christian. We have enough problems arguing theology throughout the various denominations. Who's idea of Christianity would rule in a "Christian" nation? I believe that is why they are reluctant.

 

I think a Christian nation could be a great blessing to all involved as long as it is done not as a Theocracy (look at Johnv 's post as how that would turn out), but as conceived by Abraham Kuyper.

"Early in December 1901, Premier Kuyper presented an official statement to clarify his government’s position. He said there were two types of Christian principles: the first were those related to salvation, and the second were those related to natural life (or common grace), including public affairs. Thus, he brought Christian principles to bear on matters concerning citizens, families, employers and employees, marriage, schools, churches, and government. He felt that in a democratic society it was appropriate for believers to organize on the basis of Christian principles with a common agenda to protect the Christian basis of society. At the same time, he respected the right of the secularist parties to promote their own agendas.

The basic political clash in parliament, he went on, was between those who believed that matters of public law must take God Almighty into consideration and those who did not. The state, he insisted, must take into account what the Bible says about the social consequences of sin.

While noting that his was a coalition government between Anti-Revolutionaries and Catholics, the premier said that each party had an independent existence and constituency. The governing program was a compromise between these two parties to build on the Christian foundations of the nation to meet the needs of the times. Seeking the righteousness of God in public affairs, declared the premier, would lead to national blessing.

Included in this agenda were bills for school reform, which would give full equality (including a voucher system) to Christian and Catholic schools, for liquor law reform to curb drunkenness, for housing codes to promote public health, for social security benefits for illness and old age, and for tax reform."
http://www.opc.org/new_horizons/NH99/NH9901d.html
http://www.redeemer.on.ca/academics/polisci/kuyper.html

 

Then you'll have to repeal Amendment I. And, you'll have to usurp my religious rights. Sorry, I won't allow either of those.

But God won't be in charge. The government will be in charge, claiming to speaking for God. No thanks.

Okay, so you would be okay with outlawing Judaism in the US? It's a Christ-denying religion that violates the laws of Christianity. Again, the government would be dictating the laws of Christianity. So much for individual religious liberty if that happens.

 

Being a "Christian nation" doesn't have to mean a theocracy, does it?

I understand it more as Christian values being the bedrock foundation of the country. It doesn't mean imposing the will of any group of Christians on other religious groups. That kind of thinking would be decidedly un Christian.

It also means the government can't establish a state sponsored religion. I believe that's the way it is now.

I find it hard to believe any Christian would not want this nation to be a "Christian" nation.

 

Carpro,

You are right. It is not about "theocracy."

It is about guaranteeing communities certain rights, including the right to teach an elective bible class at the local high school. It is about a judge not being fired for standing up for the display of the 10 Commandments. It is about standing up for family values.

 

If it means enforcing Christian preferences to the exclusion of others, then it becomes theocratic.

The bedrock of the foundation of this country is guaranteeing the freedoms of all. Sometimes guaranteeing those freedoms violates Christian values. For example, guaranteeing the freedom of Muslims, Buddhists, and Mormons to worship can violate the Christian edict of supporting false religions. Allowing a person to abuse tobacco and caffiene violates the Christian edict of keeping the temple clean. And so on...

Now, there, I agree completely.

You bet. Government-sponsored churches are verboten, and rightly so.

I don't want this to be a Christian nation, nor a nation that preferrs any religion over another. As soon as the government gives preference to my faith, it usurps my freedom to practice that same faith.

 

Me, too. I'm sick of what our nation has become by allowing everyone to have all their so-called rights. The Founding Fathers would be appalled at what they gave up land, fortunes, blood, health, and lives for has turned into a cariacature of what they envisioned. They would be appalled at the reckless murder of unborn citizens. They would be appalled at the moral decay and degeneration of our once GREAT nation!

Frankly, I can't wait until Jesus comes to rule and reign with a "rod of iron." He will mete out justice that will be fair and His laws WILL obeyed and every knee will bow and declare Him as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. And not only that, I just betcha the 10 Commandments will be posted everywhere on all public lands throughout the earth! Hallelujah!

 

Those not wanting a Christian nation must be right, their prayers are certainly being answered...

 

So which parts of the Constitution would you repeal? And chirch Christian belief would you put in charge?

Jesus would NEVER advocate mandatory posting of the 10C's as a rule of law. In fact, all he would ask is that they be written in our hearts.

 

Of course, every society, Christian or otherwise, is going to by neccessity protect its own core values. And every system of law is, by definition, based upon a religious system (there is no neutrality).

So a pagan nation with pagan laws is really better than a Christian nation with Christian laws? That's an unbelievable assesment for a Christian to make.

 

The constitution is fine. The way it is interpreted is not.

It is not defending religious freedom. It is pushing an Anti-Christian agenda.

 

By the way John - I thought you were a Christian. Why would a Christian nation prevent you from exercising your religious rights?

 

Depends on what one means by Christian--

Many people say the the U.S. of A. was founded on Christian Principles. To be sure, many of the souls in this country in 1776 arrived here fleeing religious and/or political persecution.

There were probably many theists in the group who framed the U.S. Constitution. Our first President was a 32-33 degree Mason, along with several other founding fathers. Does this mean "In God We Trust" really means "In GAOTU" we trust? An interesting supposition. Where is Jesus--The Christ--and Him crucified in all of this? If GAOTU is acceptable, so is Allah--then Jesus becomes meaningless.

Jesus never said to get caught up in politics. He did say His disciples would be witnesses(martyrs), and that they have--usually by the hand of a state sponsored religion. Jesus never forced Himself on anyone. Still does'nt.

Jesus will reign with His followers--starting with the Millenium. Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

If it means enforcing Christian preferences to the exclusion of others, then it becomes theocratic.

The bedrock of the foundation of this country is guaranteeing the freedoms of all. Sometimes guaranteeing those freedoms violates Christian values. For example, guaranteeing the freedom of Muslims, Buddhists, and Mormons to worship can violate the Christian edict of supporting false religions. Allowing a person to abuse tobacco and caffiene violates the Christian edict of keeping the temple clean. And so on...
</font>[/QUOTE]Why do you consider being a "Christian" nation and "guaranteeing the freedoms of all" to be mutually exclusive?

 

Why do you say that?