Christian nationalism: the state of the debate

[ken_sylvania]

“Christian nationalism” is a bogeyman that seems to mostly exist in your own mind and perhaps the minds of other liberals.

Maybe you should get out more Josh.

I do, and I have yet to see it anywhere except conspiracy theory circles. None of the churches around me are doing this, and Ken’s video wasn’t even of a church.

I do see a lot of people flying flags today - but it is Memorial Day. I am not one of them.

And, Ken, this country was founded by Anglicans and at its founding had 3 state state churches. So your assertion above is incorrect.

There is plenty of Christian nationalism going on that doesn't involve driving tanks over cars.

[ohio jones]

The American nation as reflected in the Constitution was founded as a secular nation with no state church. To the contrary. A state church is explicitly forbidden by the 1st Amendment.

State churches continued to exist after adoption of the First Amendment, which forbids a federal church.

[Szdfan]

The American nation as reflected in the Constitution was founded as a secular nation with no state church. To the contrary. A state church is explicitly forbidden by the 1st Amendment.

State churches continued to exist after adoption of the First Amendment, which forbids a federal church.

In the US? Where?

[Szdfan]

I’m going to point out that a certain somebody who is denying that Christian Nationalism exists has made statements that could be characterized as supportive of a type of Christian nationalism or at least adjacent to Christian Nationalism.

Should we desire unbelievers to be writing laws?

At this country's founding, atheists were considered unreliable witnesses since they had no fear of God nor a fear of eternal punishment, and thus were not able to run for office since they couldn't swear an oath of office.

I see no reason why this situation should change. Atheists are unreliable and untrustworthy. They have rejected truth itself.

Atheism, specifically, is a REJECTION of God, and is a very harmful, toxic ideology that has no place being respected in a society. The Constitution of America allows freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

I understand this as a viewpoint that argues that people of faith should be the ones running the country because atheists are icky. While that might not be directly Christian Nationalism, I think it’s an argument located somewhere in the neighborhood.

[Soloist]

I don’t care who runs our country, but I’d rather it not be Christians to give us a worse name.

[Josh]

I understand this as a viewpoint that argues that people of faith should be the ones running the country because atheists are icky. While that might not be directly Christian Nationalism, I think it’s an argument located somewhere in the neighborhood.

Atheists reject truth itself and God’s revealed and inspired word. This goes way beyond being “icky”. Atheism is the literal enemy of men’s souls and will lead many to eternal damnation.

As the Bible says, “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”

But going back to Szd’s post, what polity, exactly, are you saying is “good”? Should we have people who are antichrist writing the laws? What exactly do you consider a “good” organisation and system of government?

[Ken]

This is what we are saying Josh (I assume Szdfan agrees here):

Article VI, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution states: https://constitution.congress.gov/const ... article-6/

"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

[Josh]

I’ll repeat myself: at America’s founding, multiple states had established state churches. There was just no single federal government established church.

As far as the clause you just pasted, that applies to federal offices but not local or state ones. For the next century or so, atheists were not reliable as witnesses in a court, let alone eligible to serve in state level offices, because their word was considered worthless. What exactly were they swearing an oath on?

[temporal1]

I don’t care who runs our country, but I’d rather it not be Christians to give us a worse name.

don’t fret. i don’t believe that’s happening, least of all by the ones who claim it.

[Ken]

As far as the clause you just pasted, that applies to federal offices but not local or state ones. For the next century or so, atheists were not reliable as witnesses in a court, let alone eligible to serve in state level offices, because their word was considered worthless. What exactly were they swearing an oath on?

Read it again. Article VI applies to the states (and by extension localities) as well.

And no, the reason why atheists couldn't testify in court was not because their word was considered worthless. It was because they could not swear an oath to a God that they did not believe in.

The reason that all courts have now switched to allowing witnesses to "swear or affirm" is not to accommodate Anabaptists and other conservative Christians who objected to swearing an oath. But rather, to accommodate atheists and non-believers since the courts eventually found that the First Amendment denies the government any authority to coerce a person into performing a religious act, including swearing oaths on a Bible. The Supreme Court decided that over 80 years ago in McCollum v. Board of Education and then later more directly in the case of Torcaso v. Watkins. Which is why today all courts allow you to either swear or affirm that you will tell the truth.