The ferocious last gasps of the religion of Christian America

[Bootstrap]

If state churches were unwanted in the colonies, why were they so prevelent. As I recall the only standout in the constitutional convention without an official church was Rhode Island. I suspect the lack of one in the constitution is more due to the fact it was divisive than to deep commitment against it. There is very, very little about it in the constitution one way or another. If unbelievers like Jefferson had less influence post convention, the legal landscape could be quite different today.

Perhaps we're overlooking their genuine belief in the merits and efficacies of a strong and robust federalism. The federal government was prohibited from imposing a national church because "Which Church, Whose Doctrine?" but the states (pre-14th amendment and subsequent court rulings) were free to do so because they were seen as closer to the people and their common and shared beliefs. Indeed it was seen as a good for the people of a certain region to elevate rather than level, certain beliefs over and against others.

Yes, that's exactly true. Different states had different religious traditions. And back then, the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States, so neither did the First Amendment. That didn't happen until after the Civil War, with the 14th Amendment.

That's, I suppose, how we get the spectacle of James Madison sponsoring a 1786 bill in the Virginia Assembly to punish "Sabbath Breakers" and a few years later saying the following about the the doctrine of "Separation of Church & State":

The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.

And of course, we would have that same ceaseless strife if we tried to create a State Church in modern America. After all, many of us think our faith is something significantly different from what the politicians talk about when they say they are Christians.

[Bootstrap]

i think this is pretty much it. altho, i’m not convinced they were really thinking much about non-Christian gods. i’m not sure. they were sharp, and had great forethought. i’m just not convinced they were quite that “far-thinking.” after all, example: the awful Christian-Muslim wars were not so remote for them.

i’m just not sure they were that “global.” but i understand contemporary claims.

Christians vigorously fight other Christians.
The framers had their hands full trying to make room for that.

Yeah, I doubt they were really thinking about Islam, but probably were thinking about Judaism as Jews were present and active in this country from the time of the founding. Jews were active in the American Revolution, both as soldiers, and also as merchants and bankers and such in the larger cities in support of independence.

Actually, the Founding Fathers did have dealings with Islam, and there were quite a few Muslims in early America.

Why Thomas Jefferson Owned a Qur’an - Islam in America dates to the founding fathers

And have you heard of the First Barbary War? Here is an excerpt from the Treaty of Peace and Amity, Signed at Tripoli June 4, 1805

ARTICLE 14th
As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan Nation, except in the defence of their just rights to freely navigate the High Seas: It is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations; And the Consuls and Agents of both Nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his Religion in his own house; all slaves of the same Religion shall not be Impeded in going to said Consuls house at hours of Prayer. The Consuls shall have liberty and personal security given them to travel within the Territories of each other, both by land and sea, and shall not be prevented from going on board any Vessel that they may think proper to visit; they shall have likewise the liberty to appoint their own Drogoman and Brokers.

Here are a bunch of other early treaties with Muslim nations.

[Dan Z]

I admittedly haven't read all of this this thread...but I've been thinking about recent events and what they reflect about American Christianity.

I have seen a number of photos and videos of the storming of the Capitol. If you look, you can see a lot of "tribal" symbols that showed who the crowd identified with. Obviously, the main markers and common denominators in the group were US flags, patriotic colors, and Trump paraphernalia (MAGA hats, Trump Flags, etc.). The crowd outside and in was largely made up of self-described "Trump Patriots," probably most of whom were not there with violent intent, but more than a few of them got caught up in the passion and frenzy.

Secondarily, the hardcore/militant among those present (including a good percentage of those who stormed the building itself) had markers identifying themselves as part of militias (Proud Boys, Three Percenters, Boogaloo Bois, Oath Keepers, etc.), or part of a general militarized uprising (camouflage, flak jackets, helmets, weapons, etc.). This was the insurrectionist sub-set of the crowd.

I initially thought Christian Nationalism was also a sub-set of the group, however the more I looked the more ubiquitous the Christian symbols (crosses, Bibles, "Jesus Saves" signs, etc.) and actions (prayer sessions, Christian rhetoric) became. It seems that Christian Nationalism was not a sideshow at all, but a main player behind much of what happened Jan. 6th.

Professor Samuel L. Perry of Perdue university (author of a book on Christian Nationalism called "Taking America Back for God") recently said this about the storming of the Capitol:

• "The Capitol insurrection was as Christian nationalist as it gets. Obviously the best evidence would be the use of sacred symbols during the insurrection such as the cross, Christian flag, Jesus saves sign, etc. But also the language of the prayers offered by the insurrectionists both outside and within the Capitol indicates the views of white Americans who obviously thought Jesus not only wanted them to violently storm the Capitol in order to take it back from the socialists, globalists, etc., but also believed God empowered their efforts, giving them victory.
  
  Together, the evidence reflects a mind-set that clearly merges national power and divine authority, believing God demands American leadership be wrested from godless usurpers and entrusted to true patriots who must be willing to shed blood (their own and others’) for God and country. Christian nationalism favors authoritarian control and what I call “good-guy violence” for the sake of maintaining a certain social order."

As a follower of Jesus I don't take any ownership for what happened at the Capitol on January 6th, or the theology behind Christian Nationalism, any more than I would expect the members of my local mosque to take ownership of Islamic terrorism. But when terrorism has occurred, I have hoped law-abiding Muslims would be bold enough to admit that their spiritual house includes some vile elements, and that they would publicly denounce the wrong that has been done in the name of Allah. Furthermore, I would hope that they would work from inside their faith community to battle and correct the sick and potentially violent ideologies that exist. I have, at times, been saddened when some have not spoken up...or worse yet, when they have justified (even passively) extremist thinking.

Well...I believe that we who claim to follow the way of Christ need to be willing to do the same - calling out the idolatry of Christian Nationalism and working to correct this heresy where-ever it begins to make inroads...even among good conservative Mennonite folks.

[temporal1]

if it helps your blood pressure any, rest assured, there will not be a follow-up of Christian crosses/flags spread coast to coast throughout the country’s public schools, as is the case for rainbow flags and BLM posters, promises+vows, inclusion in curriculum, et al.

choose any other god, any cult you want.

i do not view/judge from videos, esp not after the Nick Sandmann pics/video(s).
that incident was sufficient to reflect how misleading they can be.

“Washington Post settles $250 million lawsuit filed by Nick Sandmann”
https://local12.com/news/local/washingt ... k-sandmann

after weeks+months of destruction and violence last summer, one day in D.C. is nothing (to me).
nothing beyond obsessive media exploitation of an otherwise relatively minor event.

Christians can pray for strength to avoid taking the bait.
whether for all of last summer, or one January day.
or worthless OPINION pieces in questionable publications.

i appreciate separation of church from gov schools.
that should include idol worship, not worship “anything except” God.
which is where the U.S. presently is.

[temporal1]

Dangerous insurrectionist standing for God and country -
precedes months of destruction and violence in U.S. cities:

[ohio jones]

I have seen a number of photos and videos of the storming of the Capitol. If you look, you can see a lot of "tribal" symbols that showed who the crowd identified with. Obviously, the main markers and common denominators in the group were US flags, patriotic colors, and Trump paraphernalia (MAGA hats, Trump Flags, etc.). The crowd outside and in was largely made up of self-described "Trump Patriots," probably most of whom I'm sure were not there with violent intent, but more than a few of them got caught up in the passion and frenzy.

Secondarily, the hardcore/militant among those present (including a good percentage of those who stormed the building itself) had markers identifying themselves as part of militias (Proud Boys, Three Percenters, Boogaloo Bois, etc.), or part of a general militarized uprising (camouflage, flak jackets, helmets, weapons, etc.). This was the insurrectionist sub-set of the crowd.

I found it quite interesting that [EDITED: DZ]...when Chansley/Angeli "prayed" in the Senate chamber, he removed his buffalo hat and undercap. "For the sons of this age are more astute than the sons of light in dealing with their own people."

For those on Facebook, look up Ransomed Musings and read yesterday's post. It's too long to copy here, but excellent musings on "Christian Nationalism."

[QuietlyListening]

For those on Facebook, look up Ransomed Musings and read yesterday's post. It's too long to copy here, but excellent musings on "Christian Nationalism."

I agree it was excellent and worth the read. My husband and I read the book she mentions too, that too is worth reading.

[temporal1]

For those on Facebook, look up Ransomed Musings and read yesterday's post. It's too long to copy here, but excellent musings on "Christian Nationalism."

I agree it was excellent and worth the read. My husband and I read the book she mentions too, that too is worth reading.

i was too afraid to read it before your comment. i have been staying away from FB and the majority of “news” media. i read, and appreciate it, the final 2 paragraphs sum it up especially well. the final paragraph:

Ransomed Musings:
.. Why endorse either party when the Kingdom of Heaven doesn’t have any wrong beliefs and
i can just endorse His principles and promote them?

i would add a few words,
.. “Why endorse either party when the Kingdom of Heaven doesn’t have any wrong beliefs and
[like Jesus, without hating anyone] i can just endorse His principles and promote them?”

media offers daily hate.

Jesus offers Our Daily Bread.

[PetrChelcicky]

Some thoughts from beyond the ocean.
First, I am always astonished how vivid Calvinism/Puritanism is in the U.S., on both sides of the political theatre.

For example, I got interested in Quakerdom as an attempt of Christians to get the better of their Puritan starting points (like the Bohemian Brethren got the better of Hussitism and Anabaptists got the better of the rising "Reformed" worldview). But after a while I found that in fact the Puritan elements in Quakerism are just what a lot of young people find fascinating in Quakerism. And the same seems to my eyes obvious even with people who deem themselves distant from "Calvinism".
The main points for me are_
1. Calvinists are cocksure how the world has to become in order to please God (and that the question: How would this world please my human neighbour on this earth? doesn't count in such a worthy case).
2. In consequence Calvinists see themselves as God's army and (logically) their opponents as the army against God.
3. As Puritans, they are always bothering about how to "purify" Christianity from pagan ort wordly influences.

The latter point is of course the base for this momentaneous campaign against "Christian nationalism". I admit that nationalism is unnecessary for Christianity - as unnecessary as calling the First Day "Sunday" or celebrating "Christmas" (two things which were anathema to the original Puritans). On the other hand, the name "Sunday" and Christmas customs give additional colour to our lives, and so does nationalism. So does Cathedral architecture or a Bach cantata (Bach implemented secular musical inventions into church music).

As for the first two points : Leftist American Puritans are not much different from rightist American Puritans. Criticizing "Christian nationalists" is in most cases a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. But - and that is in my eyes the real miracle - there is hardly anyone who questions the Christian overtones in American Leftist enterprises, from the the Civil Rights Movement to the Open Borders Movement. Leftist American Puritans are nearly never challenged about their mixture of religion and politics; so how can they learn to use the same standards for their opponents as for themselves?

By the way: We Europeans have the advantage that here there have been actually open and honest Anti-Christian movements, parties, political projects and persecutions. That's why we have Christian Parties, as a means to protect ourselves!

[Dan Z]

As for the first two points : Leftist American Puritans are not much different from rightist American Puritans. Criticizing "Christian nationalists" is in most cases a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. But - and that is in my eyes the real miracle - there is hardly anyone who questions the Christian overtones in American Leftist enterprises, from the the Civil Rights Movement to the Open Borders Movement. Leftist American Puritans are nearly never challenged about their mixture of religion and politics; so how can they learn to use the same standards for their opponents as for themselves?

This is a valid point. In one sense, civil religion occurs on both sides of the political spectrum. I was thinking about this the other day in relationship to the two pictures below - as a litmus test of sorts. If a person feels positive about the civil-religion expressed in one photo, and negative about it the other, then their issue is more likely political than theological.