Decline of christianity in the united states

[temporal1]

Ill add two more. What time period in American History was great? Why was that a great period? And who was it great for?

... and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope?

That's a lot of question marks. I didn't expect the Spanish Inquisition (nobody does).

i’m serious. what are you referring to? i don’t even know Catholics that are devoted to the Pope, much less fanatically so. not born in the U.S.

You shouldn't be quite so serious. I was using a Monty Python quote to draw attention to JBG's difficulty in counting.

o.thanks. i was in a panic thinking i’d missed a whole period in U.S. history, or, had missed everything altogether.
which, for me, is always a possibility. now thinking of Huguenots in NY. https://newyork.consulfrance.org/the-le ... n-new-york

[Thomas_muntzer]

America is great because it was a Christian nation (despite its flaws); it will cease to be so when it ceases to be a Christian nation. And today, unlike 100 years ago, morally, politically, and spiritually, we are ceasing to be Christians.

Recommended Reading:
In God We Don't Trust, Bercot
The Myth of a Christian Nation, Boyd

Ok i'm goint to put on my list to read

[Thomas_muntzer]

“One nation under God” is part of how the forefathers saw us.
I realize Mennonites look at these things differently than other Christian’s denominations so he’s probably on the wrong forum for this to be raised.

Before they jump on you, the phrase was added in the 1950’s (not by Mennonites). https://www.history.com/articles/pledge ... od-schools

i appreciate the spirit of the OP, there’s a lot to work on there. a lot to pray about.
it’s esp painful when scriptures are hijacked by atheists to deceive. evil has no shame.

(i think) the founders were wise to not create a nation as Catholic, Christian, Quaker, or other, but neither was the intent to be God-less. It was a busy time (understatement) they were under pressure, i don’t believe they were thinking of Muslims, Hindus, or, frankly, Native American religious beliefs as they wrote. Their work is still remarkable, not completely comprehensive.

Humanists+atheists are out for their own interests. Christians can be easy targets.
Seek the spirit, not the letter.

I think that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, religious freedom emphasized the different Christian denominations because at that time, Europe was experiencing atrocious sectarian wars. I suppose they didn't see the rise of Islam or Hinduism as a problem because they didn't see it as possible.

They were worried about more wars between different Christian denominations, like the one that ravaged England under Oliver Cromwell

[barnhart]

“One nation under God” is part of how the forefathers saw us.
I realize Mennonites look at these things differently than other Christian’s denominations so he’s probably on the wrong forum for this to be raised.

Before they jump on you, the phrase was added in the 1950’s (not by Mennonites). https://www.history.com/articles/pledge ... od-schools

i appreciate the spirit of the OP, there’s a lot to work on there. a lot to pray about.
it’s esp painful when scriptures are hijacked by atheists to deceive. evil has no shame.

(i think) the founders were wise to not create a nation as Catholic, Christian, Quaker, or other, but neither was the intent to be God-less. It was a busy time (understatement) they were under pressure, i don’t believe they were thinking of Muslims, Hindus, or, frankly, Native American religious beliefs as they wrote. Their work is still remarkable, not completely comprehensive.

Humanists+atheists are out for their own interests. Christians can be easy targets.
Seek the spirit, not the letter.

I think that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, religious freedom emphasized the different Christian denominations because at that time, Europe was experiencing atrocious sectarian wars. I suppose they didn't see the rise of Islam or Hinduism as a problem because they didn't see it as possible.

They were worried about more wars between different Christian denominations, like the one that ravaged England under Oliver Cromwell

This may generally be true but not universally true. A glaring exception would be Thomas Jefferson who speculated a Jew or "Mohammadian" might become president once those communities became established and gained political power.

[temporal1]

Before they jump on you, the phrase was added in the 1950’s (not by Mennonites). https://www.history.com/articles/pledge ... od-schools

i appreciate the spirit of the OP, there’s a lot to work on there. a lot to pray about.
it’s esp painful when scriptures are hijacked by atheists to deceive. evil has no shame.

(i think) the founders were wise to not create a nation as Catholic, Christian, Quaker, or other, but neither was the intent to be God-less. It was a busy time (understatement) they were under pressure, i don’t believe they were thinking of Muslims, Hindus, or, frankly, Native American religious beliefs as they wrote. Their work is still remarkable, not completely comprehensive.

Humanists+atheists are out for their own interests. Christians can be easy targets.
Seek the spirit, not the letter.

I think that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, religious freedom emphasized the different Christian denominations because at that time, Europe was experiencing atrocious sectarian wars. I suppose they didn't see the rise of Islam or Hinduism as a problem because they didn't see it as possible.

They were worried about more wars between different Christian denominations, like the one that ravaged England under Oliver Cromwell

This may generally be true but not universally true. A glaring exception would be Thomas Jefferson who speculated a Jew or "Mohammadian" might become president once those communities became established and gained political power.

i appreciate your wording.
‘cause, just because TJ speculated about it, doesn’t mean this was common knowledge or mainstream. there will always be some who see beyond most. TJ was no ordinary guy, even in that group of founders.

Thomas_m did a nice job of briefly describing what was going on.
It’s interesting to try to grasp history in perspective of everyday life. Not easy.

[Thomas_muntzer]

^^lots of posts added while i was writing. i’ll go back to read.

- - - - - - -

Thomas_muntzer,
i believe your OP was posted in good faith for the purpose of constructive Christian dialogue.
sorry it’s doomed for the equivalent of a political food fight.

evil “hit the jackpot” with some of the fav divisive talking points even found here.
dividing Christians against one another is both pretty easy and, hey, “life is good” for evil, only required to sit back and tally wins.

fighting over the letter is the essence of human law. no bottom to that pit. [the spirit 2Cor3:6]

from your posting history, i believe you’re seeking the spirit, it’s a lifelong journey. ”the spirit gives life”

evil doesn’t sleep. it can’t, it has no peace, at all. it’s often noisy, always empty. insatiable.
evil has no shame about taking the most sacred things to twist for wrong. through the letter is a slam dunk. “for the letter kills”

I believe Thomas posted in good faith, but it’s also possible to disagree with him in good faith. His OP is an argument for Christian nationalism — it’s not exactly a shock that a forum full of Anabaptists would disagree and push back on him.

It's healthy to have different positions.

Christian nationalism is a contradictory term, an oxymoron, to me. Christianity is internationalist. The gospel of Christ commands us to make disciples of all cultures and peoples of the earth, something completely opposite to nationalism.

However, I believe it's not wrong to care about the country you live in and want that country to improve. Christianity, in my opinion, helps to greatly improve a nation. Let's simply look at the case of Africa (Christian African countries are much better than Muslim ones) or the island of Haiti and the Dominican Republic (in one, the most practiced religion is Voodoo; in the other, it's Christianity).

Now, of course, there's a huge gray line where that concern and that desire to improve the place where one lives can turn into Christian nationalism. Where that line is drawn is a very good topic for debate.

[JohnL]

Well I’ve pretty much avoided this thread and just read the occasional replies to learn points of view.
One thing I noticed is that there’s a lot of generalization as though what’s happening in Michigan or wherever else is also happening everywhere. But that’s not true. We aren’t seeing a decline here. We’re seeing growth.

[Praxis+Theodicy]

Before they jump on you, the phrase was added in the 1950’s (not by Mennonites). https://www.history.com/articles/pledge ... od-schools

i appreciate the spirit of the OP, there’s a lot to work on there. a lot to pray about.
it’s esp painful when scriptures are hijacked by atheists to deceive. evil has no shame.

(i think) the founders were wise to not create a nation as Catholic, Christian, Quaker, or other, but neither was the intent to be God-less. It was a busy time (understatement) they were under pressure, i don’t believe they were thinking of Muslims, Hindus, or, frankly, Native American religious beliefs as they wrote. Their work is still remarkable, not completely comprehensive.

Humanists+atheists are out for their own interests. Christians can be easy targets.
Seek the spirit, not the letter.

I think that when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, religious freedom emphasized the different Christian denominations because at that time, Europe was experiencing atrocious sectarian wars. I suppose they didn't see the rise of Islam or Hinduism as a problem because they didn't see it as possible.

They were worried about more wars between different Christian denominations, like the one that ravaged England under Oliver Cromwell

This may generally be true but not universally true. A glaring exception would be Thomas Jefferson who speculated a Jew or "Mohammadian" might become president once those communities became established and gained political power.

Another early citation from American history is the trade treaty with Tripoli in 1797.

As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen (Muslims); and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan (Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

[JohnH]

The United States as an entity wasn’t seen as endorsing a particular religion but it was expected the individual states would (and of course be “Christian” states); several states had established churches, and generally anyone holding public office or testifying had to wear an oath to / on the Bible. (Pennsylvania famously allowed them to just affirm since they had so many Quakers).

[Praxis+Theodicy]

The United States as an entity wasn’t seen as endorsing a particular religion but it was expected the individual states would (and of course be “Christian” states); several states had established churches,

Just becuse something did happen, and just because it was not explicitly prohibited, does not necessarily imply that it is "expected". Also, even if something is expected, that does not demonstrate a case in either direction. When Roe v. Wade was overturned, it was "expected" that many states would move to outlaw abortion. This does not demonstrate that America is pro-life. It was also "expected" that many states would move to bolster and expand abortion rights and access. This does not demonstrate that Amaerica is pro-choice, either.

and generally anyone holding public office or testifying had to (s)wear an oath to / on the Bible. (Pennsylvania famously allowed them to just affirm since they had so many Quakers).

Anyone serving in the American government must swear or affirm their commitment to uphold the Constitution of America, but, in fact, requiring someone to swear on the Bible is strictly prohibited in that very constitution. Article 6, section 3 of the American constitution reads:

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.

Government officers have been sworn in without a physical object to swear by, and have also used many different objects to swear by, such as a religious text from their own beliefs (like a Qur’an, a Bhagavad Gita, or the Hebrew "Old Testament"), or other texts like a children's book, a book of prayer, or a copy of the constitution itself.
source: https://bookriot.com/books-politicians- ... orn-in-on/