This came up in our discussion of France and on some other threads...whether or not the US is a Christian nation and whether or not France is a Catholic nation...

The reality is that most people in the US consider themselves to be Christian, just like between 66% (2003) and 83% (2007) of French consider themselves to be Catholic...but it has been argued that despite this fact -- the US is neither a Christian nation nor France a Catholic nation...

What determines whether or not a nation is Christian, Muslim or Catholic?

Obviously, it cannot be the

Is Italy a Catholic nation?

It has 97% of its nation being regarded as Catholic...


Top 10 Nations with
Most Catholics
NationPercentNumber of
baptized
CatholicsBrazil86.50%134,818,000Mexico95.3086,305,000USA26.00~61,000,000Philippines83.6058,735,000Ita
y97.20%55,599,000France82.1047,773,000Spain94.2036,956,000Poland95.4036,835,000Colombia
1.9032,260,000Argentina90.7031,546,000Germany34.8028,403,000
Source: 1998 Catholic Almanac: Our Sunday Visitor: USA (1997), pg. 333-367. Except U.S. figures, which are from general sources.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_romcath.html

ReligionAbout 95 percent of Italy’s people are Roman Catholics. Most baptisms, weddings, and funerals are held in churches, but only about 30 percent of all Italians attend church regularly. A lot of others occasionally attend church. An agreement called the Latheran Pact governs the relationship between Italy and the Roman Catholic Church. For instance, the part is about priests and other members of religious orders from military service and gives tax exemptions to Catholic organizations.

The Roman Catholic Church has had a strong influence on laws in the past, but that influence has weakened. For example, until 1970, the church was able to block attempts to legalize divorce in Italy. In 1978, voters didn’t allow the church position and voted to allow abortions.

Vatican City, the spiritual and governmental center of the Roman Catholic Church, lies entirely within the city of Rome. There are a lot of small religious people in Italy. These groups are Protestane, Muslim, and Jewish.

http://library.thinkquest.org/J0112187/italy_way_of_life.htm

October 7, 2007Op-Ed Contributor
A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation
By JON MEACHAMCorrection Appended

JOHN McCAIN was not on the campus of Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University last year for very long — the senator, who once referred to Mr. Falwell and Pat Robertson as “agents of intolerance,” was there to receive an honorary degree — but he seems to have picked up some theology along with his academic hood. In an interview with Beliefnet.com last weekend, Mr. McCain repeated what is an article of faith among many American evangelicals: “the Constitution established the United States of America as a Christian nation.”

According to Scripture, however, believers are to be wary of all mortal powers. Their home is the kingdom of God, which transcends all earthly things, not any particular nation-state. The Psalmist advises believers to “put not your trust in princes.” The author of Job says that the Lord “shows no partiality to princes nor regards the rich above the poor, for they are all the work of his hands.” Before Pilate, Jesus says, “My kingdom is not of this world.” And if, as Paul writes in Galatians, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female: for you are all one in Christ Jesus,” then it is difficult to see how there could be a distinction in God’s eyes between, say, an American and an Australian. In fact, there is no distinction if you believe Peter’s words in the Acts of the Apostles: “I most certainly believe now that God is not one to show partiality, but in every nation the man who fears him and does what is right is welcome to him.”

The kingdom Jesus preached was radical. Not only are nations irrelevant, but families are, too: he instructs those who would be his disciples to give up all they have and all those they know to follow him.

The only acknowledgment of God in the original Constitution is a utilitarian one: the document is dated “in the year of our Lord 1787.” Even the religion clause of the First Amendment is framed dryly and without reference to any particular faith. The Connecticut ratifying convention debated rewriting the preamble to take note of God’s authority, but the effort failed.

A pseudonymous opponent of the Connecticut proposal had some fun with the notion of a deity who would, in a sense, be checking the index for his name: “A low mind may imagine that God, like a foolish old man, will think himself slighted and dishonored if he is not complimented with a seat or a prologue of recognition in the Constitution.” Instead, the framers, the opponent wrote in The American Mercury, “come to us in the plain language of common sense and propose to our understanding a system of government as the invention of mere human wisdom; no deity comes down to dictate it, not a God appears in a dream to propose any part of it.”

While many states maintained established churches and religious tests for office — Massachusetts was the last to disestablish, in 1833 — the federal framers, in their refusal to link civil rights to religious observance or adherence, helped create a culture of religious liberty that ultimately carried the day.

Thomas Jefferson said that his bill for religious liberty in Virginia was “meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu, and infidel of every denomination.” When George Washington was inaugurated in New York in April 1789, Gershom Seixas, the hazan of Shearith Israel, was listed among the city’s clergymen (there were 14 in New York at the time) — a sign of acceptance and respect. The next year, Washington wrote the Hebrew Congregation of Newport, R.I., saying, “happily the government of the United States ... gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance. ... Everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

Andrew Jackson resisted bids in the 1820s to form a “Christian party in politics.” Abraham Lincoln buried a proposed “Christian amendment” to the Constitution to declare the nation’s fealty to Jesus. Theodore Roosevelt defended William Howard Taft, a Unitarian, from religious attacks by supporters of William Jennings Bryan.

The founders were not anti-religion. Many of them were faithful in their personal lives, and in their public language they evoked God. They grounded the founding principle of the nation — that all men are created equal — in the divine. But they wanted faith to be one thread in the country’s tapestry, not the whole tapestry.

In the 1790s, in the waters off Tripoli, pirates were making sport of American shipping near the Barbary Coast. Toward the end of his second term, Washington sent Joel Barlow, the diplomat-poet, to Tripoli to settle matters, and the resulting treaty, finished after Washington left office, bought a few years of peace. Article 11 of this long-ago document says that “as the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,” there should be no cause for conflict over differences of “religious opinion” between countries.

The treaty passed the Senate unanimously. Mr. McCain is not the only American who would find it useful reading.

Jon Meacham, the editor of Newsweek, is the author of “American Gospel” and “Franklin and Winston.”

Correction: October 13, 2007



An Op-Ed article on Sunday, about the idea of the United States as a Christian nation, incorrectly described the number of the original Constitution’s religious references. Article VI forbids the use of “a religious test” for officeholders; the phrase “the year of our Lord” is not the sole allusion to religion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/opinion/...agewanted=print

/27/2007What is a "Christian Nation" Anyway? by Zachary Gappa






What is a "Christian Nation" Anyway?

By Zachary Gappa
September 27th, 2007

There has been much argument in recent decades over whether America is or was a "Christian nation." The Evangelical Right seems particularly concerned about defending the idea of America's Christian Heritage, while public secularists seem to believe that they will gain some substantial power by disproving such a religious basis. Members of each side have different interpretations of what it means for America to be, or to have been, a "Christian nation." Practical implications are varied, but the debate goes further, as the very definitions of the debate are obscured in a morass of rhetoric. One must look to the common threads of argumentation and attempt to clarify both the definitions of the debate and the implications of that particular thread.



<FONT size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt">The oft-heard argument from evangelicals is that America should embrace explicitly Christian morality in its current political process, because its great Founding was based on Christian morality. They argue that the American nation was established on the basis of Christian values, both political and cultural, and thus to continue to ignore that basis in modern America is to ensure the continued crumbling of the entire nation. The argument progresses to some variation of this conclusion: In order for America to retain its place as a great nation, it must consciously incorporate Christian morality into its legal and political systems.

What is a "Christian Nation" Anyway? by Zachary Gappa


http://www.centerforajustsociety.org/press...cjsForumID=1084



What is a "Christian Nation" Anyway?

By Zachary Gappa
September 27th, 2007

Almost nine out of 10 Americans (86%) say that they believe in God, even when given the choice of saying that they "don't believe in God, but believe in a universal spirit or higher power" (chosen by only eight percent). In fact, only five percent of the population choose neither of these choices and thus claim a more straightforward atheistic position. Gallup Poll, Christmas 1999

http://christianparty.net/christianation.htm

"The question begs then, did the Supreme Court recognize the United States as a Christian nation? Well, in 1892 the US Supreme Court made this ruling in a case. (Church of The Holy Trinity vs. The United States.) "No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people. This is a Christian nation."

Posted on Sat, Jun. 27, 2009 <H1 id=storyTitle>In what sense is America a 'Christian nation'?</H1><H2 id=sub_headline></H2>Paul Prather
Contributing columnist When protesters took to the streets over Iran's disputed presidential election, that nation turned to its supreme leaders — Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his 12-member Guardian Council, made up of clerics and experts in Islamic law — for a verdict on the election's outcome.

Iran's appeal to religious authorities for a binding decision on a national election struck me as odd. Or quaint. Or ominous.

As an American, I've never had to worry about a religious potentate or a group of ministers deciding for all of us who our next president would be.

Somehow, though, the developments in Iran made me think of my recent appearance on Jack Pattie's radio call-in program on WVLK-590 AM.

The question that morning was whether the United States is a "Christian nation." Quite a few callers had strong opinions, pro and con.

I find that whole issue thorny.

Iran, for instance, obviously is a Muslim nation; it's a theocracy.

But in what sense is America "Christian"? Here are a few thoughts:

The people who argue that America was founded as a Christian nation rarely define what they mean. They might be right; they might be wrong. It depends entirely on how you use the words "Christian nation."

It's true, for instance, that most of America's early Europe-born settlers would have claimed Christianity as their faith. On the other hand, it's a mistake to imagine those folks as a like-minded throng of Scripture-spouting pilgrims.

By 1776, a mere 17 percent of Americans belonged to churches, according to The Churching of America 1776-1990: Winners and Losers in Our Religious Economy by Roger Finke and Rodney Starke (Rutgers University Press, 1992). A comparative few early settlers came here to practice their religion; many more came to claim land, make money and, on occasion, escape criminal prosecution overseas.

It's true, too, that many of America's laws and guiding principles were based directly or indirectly on the Bible. But most of the Bible (the whole Old Testament) was first written by Jews for Jews, not by Christians for Christians. Also, much of the United States' founding ethos was based on the works of liberal political philosophers such as John Locke.

As for the guys who gave us the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, they ran the theological gamut, from Christians to deists to agnostics.

If you actually read the Constitution they wrote — plus any ream of other, related documents — it's clear the framers were distrustful of church hierarchies and hoped to limit their influence, while at the same time allowing all citizens religious freedom.

Is the United States today a Christian country? Again, it depends on how you define the term. Certainly, the majority of Americans classify themselves as Christians: 77 percent in a 2008 Gallup survey (down from 91 percent in 1948).

Yet, depending on whose study you believe, only 20 percent to 40 percent of Americans, a minority, actually attend services on any given Sunday.

Look at other indicators of how people's faith actually affects their lives, and the gap between our profession and our practices becomes glaring.

The Barna Group reported that in 2007, a mere 5 percent of all American adults gave a 10 percent tithe of their income to churches. A 2006 Barna study found that only 15 percent of those who regularly attended church rated their relationship with God as the most important thing in their life. And in another Barna poll, 75 percent of U.S. teenagers said they would engage in psychic or witchcraft activity.

None of this indicates a nation awash in Christian piety.

I don't hear many people calling for the United States to establish a theocracy governed by the Christian equivalent of an ayatollah. But I can't help wondering what such a development would look like.

Let's say our Christian ayatollah was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, President Barack Obama's controversial former minister, or liberal theologian John Shelby Spong. Evangelicals would rend their garments and declare civil war.

If evangelicals managed to install the Rev. Pat Robertson or conservative activist James Dobson, mainline Protestants would go berserk.

What if the Conference of Catholic Bishops declared one of its members our pre-eminent power, and the other bishops became his Guardian Council? Nearly everyone else — including millions of Catholics who disagree with the bishops on birth control, abortion, homosexuality or the death penalty — would simply lose their minds.

Various religious factions lobby to get like-minded individuals elected to Congress or appointed as federal judges, but I don't think we have to fret about the United States ever becoming a theocracy.

Whether or not this is, or ever was, a Christian country according to your personal definition, American Christians today are so fragmented they couldn't cooperate long enough to take over the government, much less administrate it.

Which maybe is what the founders were counting on.

Their vision has made this a terrific land in which to live. We can believe any reasonable or unreasonable thing we want to, or believe nothing. It's up to each of us, our conscience and our God. No dour-faced holy man can force even one of us to do anything.

I define that as true freedom.


Paul Prather is pastor of Bethesda Church near Mount Sterling. E-mail him at pratpd@yahoo.com or visit his church's Web site at www.bethesdachurchky.org.

http://www.kentucky.com/158/v-print/story/844472.html

Why would a nation, any more than a person, need a religious modifier before its name?

I think the question is asked, not to acquire information but to make a statement...In most political discourse,
religion, when it is discussed at all, is usually used as a wedge issue...

Well, I started this thread because you and GOP Guy suggested that France was not a "Catholic" nation...

Now, I granted you that France has no official religion...but the vast majority of French people consider themselves Catholic...so if this is the case, why can't France be called a Catholic country...

And why can't the US be described as a Christian country...

This is not to say that there is a state religion or that there are not other relighons, but only that both nations have a clear majority of persons within them who subscribe to the particular faith mentioned...

I think this is particularly useful when gleening from a nation what its religious mindset is...

A secular nation like France...although promoting its historical secular positiion...often acts in a manner which supports its majority population of Christians -- Catholics...

The nation may not perceive itself acting in this manner...particularly since its independence...from a monarchy was partially a result of the tyranny of the Catholic Church, but the fact that most French subscribe to these views...no matter their particular political background...certainly offers a common frame of reference and why the ostracism of the minority religion may not be seen as such...

Soft dominionism (Christian nationalism)The term soft dominionism is applied to various Christian Right social and political movements that claim that "America is a Christian nation." Soft Dominionists also disclaim the existence of the "wall of separation" between church and state. In her book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Michelle Goldberg called this tendency "Christian Nationalism."^[20] Berlet and Clarkson have agreed that "[s]oft Dominionists are Christian nationalists."^[60]

Unlike "dominionism", "Christian nation" is language that is commonly found in the writings of Christian Right leaders themselves. Proponents of this idea (such as David Barton and D. James Kennedy) argue that the Founding Fathers of the United States were overwhelmingly Christian, that founding documents such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are based on Christian principles, and that a Christian character is fundamental to American culture.^[61][62][63] They cite, for example, the U.S. Supreme Court's comment in 1892 that "this [the United States] is a Christian nation",^[64] after citing numerous historical and legal arguments in support of that statement.^[65][66]

Critics^[67] argue the claim that the United States is a Christian nation is of questionable historic validity (often pointing out the deist beliefs of some of the founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson's^[68] in particular), is ethnocentric, and reduces secularists and members of other religions (such as Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism) to second-class status. Other critics cite the Treaty with Tripoli (1796) passed by the United States Senate, which assured the ruler of that Muslim state that the United States government "is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion,"^[69] and George Washington's letter to Moses Seixas, in which Washington defended religious freedom for Jews ("For happily, the government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_nation

Britain is no longer a Christian nation

If recent trends are any guide, many Church of England parishes will have been cheered by higher attendances at Easter services. The last published statistics for 2006/7 show rises of 7 and 5 per cent in church going at Christmas and Easter.
By the Rt Rev Paul Richardson
Published: 11:36PM BST 27 Jun 2009

But these figures are just about the only signs of hope for the church and certainly not the first green shoots of a revival. Other statistics make for gloomy reading.

Annual decline in Sunday attendance is running at around 1 per cent. At this rate it is hard to see the church surviving for more than 30 years though few of its leaders are prepared to face that possibility.

In the short term we are likely to see more closures of buildings as the church battles to meet a big pension bill, pay clergy, and maintain a large bureaucracy. To its credit, the church has been successful at getting members to give, but larger donations cannot offset the fall in numbers. At present the church is struggling to maintain 16,200 buildings, many of them old and listed with 4,200 listed Grade I.

If decline continues, Christian Research has estimated that in five years' time church closures will accelerate from their present rate of 30 a year to 200 a year as dwindling congregations find the cost of keeping them open too great.

Perhaps the most worrying set of statistics for the Church of England is the decline in baptisms. Out of every 1,000 live births in England in 2006/7 only 128 were baptised as Anglicans.

The figure rises by a small amount if adult baptism and thanksgiving services are included but it is hard to see the Church of England being able to justify its position as the established church on the basis of these numbers.

By way of contrast, out of every 1,000 live births in England in 1900, 609 were baptised in the Church of England. Figures for church marriages show an equally catastrophic decline.

The church is being hit by a double whammy: on the one hand it confronts the challenge of institutional decline but on the other hand it has to face the rise of cultural and religious pluralism in Britain.

How it responds to the second challenge will be crucial in determining whether it will be able to survive as a viable organisation and make a contribution to national life.

At present church leaders show little signs of understanding the situation. They don't understand the culture we now live in.

Many bishops prefer to turn their heads, to carry on as if nothing has changed, rather than face the reality that Britain is no longer a Christian nation.

Many of them think that we are still living in the 1950s – a period described by historians as representing a hey day for the established church.

The coronation brought church and nation together in a way which will never be repeated. School assemblies had a definite Christian tone and children still sang familiar hymns.

The church could function as chaplain to a nation that was nominally Christian and Anglican, even if many actually only attended for baptisms, weddings and funerals. That world has gone for good.

Gordon Brown's unilateral decision to take no part in nominating bishops to the Queen (a matter he did not discuss with David Cameron or Nick Clegg, in breach of constitutional protocol) makes it less likely that bishops will retain their place in a reformed House of Lords.

Rather than try to cling on to their places in the House of Lords, they should take the initiative by withdrawing, which would show that they appreciate Christian Britain is dead.

The church can try to fight the forces of change or it can see the crisis as an opportunity to give itself a clearer sense of identity.

One reason for increased attendance at Christmas and Easter may be that people are looking for a way of affirming identity in a pluralist society.

So far its leaders are choosing to resist but doing so in a very Anglican way: making concessions when necessary and hoping by small, strategic retreats to buy time and preserve the status quo.

The reason offered for upholding establishment is usually that it gives the church a sense of responsibility to the whole nation. In practice it often looks as if the church is really trying to keep its special privileges on false pretences.

For a time other faith communities may welcome the special position of the established church as a bulwark against secularism.

The Chief Rabbi is a forceful defender of the valuable role the Church of England can play in bringing faith communities together and fostering understanding across creedal barriers.

But the church would be a more effective bulwark against secularism if it was stronger and the role the Chief Rabbi has mapped out is likely to disappear as different faith communities get used to dealing with each other directly.

Disestablishment will actually pose major problems for society. Every country needs shared rituals and celebrations to foster a sense of community and provide a backdrop to major national occasions.

We are going to have to invent a new civil religion. Already the process has begun with the observance of Holocaust Day and increasing focus on Human Rights as providing a shared basis for morality.

If Anglicans could acquire a stronger sense of who they are and what they believe they might slow the rate of decline and possibly even stabilise their numbers.

They would still be a minority but they could be a creative minority. The trick will be to reach this situation without falling into a fundamentalist trap or cutting off links with the wider world.

Other organisations, particularly Roman Catholics with their three-hundred year history of persecution and minority status, can be a guide, showing both the dangers to avoid and the opportunities to seize.

The Rt Rev Paul Richardson is the assistant Bishop of Newcastle.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/5662294...ian-nation.html

What Defines a “Christian Nation?”
First of all, what defines a Christian? Is it anyone who calls himself such or is it someone who struggles daily to obey Christ? What percentage of a nation’s population must be Christian to qualify it as a Christian nation? Who established that percentage? If it goes below that is it no longer a Christian nation? How many Christian nations are there?

Is it founded by armed rebellion (Rom 13:1-7) against a nation that acknowledges the lordship of Christ or does it refuse to war against fellow Christians? Is it a theocracy—God’s choice for the nation of Israel instead of monarchy? Does it recognize that freedom of religion allows the worship of other gods and that our God is a jealous God? Do its founding documents establish Christianity as the state religion and cite the Bible as its source of law? Does its flag bear a cross? Does it require all immigrants seeking citizenship to be Christians? Is there a requirement that its leaders be Christian? Does its government literally adhere to the teachings of Christ?

Does it place obedience to Christ above life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness (John 12:25-26)? Does it love its enemies and not resist evil persons or does it respond to them the same way as do non-Christian nations? If the latter, is its ruler infallible in all areas or only in the decision to go to war? Is this infallibility like that of the kings of Israel? Are its weapons different from the weapons of the world (2 Cor 10:3-4)? Does it abhor weapons that can destroy entire populations indiscriminately? Does it overcome evil with good? Does it feed its enemies when they are hungry and give them drink when they are thirsty? Does it refuse to rejoice at the downfall of its enemies? Does it trust in God rather than the pre-Christian rationalization that the end justifies the means? Does it reject torture regardless of its effectiveness? Must it have a strong military in order to “trust” in God? Or can it even be an authority that bears the sword if all who take up the sword will perish by the sword?

Does it love its neighbors as itself? Does it respect the lives and property of citizens of other nations the same as those of its own citizens? Does it refrain from intimidating or coercing other nations? Does it ever deceive them? Is its foreign policy free of the vices that start most wars: fear, pride, vengeance or greed, masquerading as justice?

Is it smug that it’s a Christian nation or is it humble? Does it give all glory to God rather than taking the credit for its successes? Are its monuments to God rather than men? Does it confess its sins and repent of them? Does it value cooperation over competition? Is it skeptical of economic systems that are driven by greed? Does it eschew the accumulation of wealth and status and instead seek holiness? Does it honor “those who do the will of my Father” above entertainers and sports stars? Is it diligent to avoid pagan traditions in its holidays (mixing the profane with the holy)? Is it exemplary in its low crime rate? Is it more interested in reconciling murderers to God than in putting them to death, desiring that none should perish? Do its citizens refuse to sue one another? Does its history reflect respect for ethnic minorities? Does its citizens’ love for one another make it stand out from other nations and draw them to Christ? Does it look like the kingdom of God?

Or does a “Christian nation” just have to be founded by “Christians?”

http://kingdomofgodflag.info/christiannation.html

April 14, 2009 12:01 PM
Hot Topic: Is U.S. A "Christian Nation?"
Posted by Brian Montopoli Late last week, the polling organization Gallup announced that "the percentage of Americans who identify with some form of a Christian religion has been dropping in recent decades, and now stands at 77 percent." In 1948, the percentage of Christians was 91 percent.

Another poll, the American Religious Identification Survey, found that 15 percent of Americans now claim no religious affiliation, nearly double the percentage in 1990.

Those figures suggest that Christianity is on the decline. Yet it remains a major force in American life: More than three in four Americans identify as Christians, and religion – Christianity in particular – is connected to many aspects of our lives.

It influences the debate over social issues and plays an important role in many families and communities; it touches everyone from death row inmates to the president, who Monday oversaw the traditional White House Easter Egg roll.

So is the United States, in the end, a "Christian nation?" And what does that mean, anyway? President Obama, as part of an effort to reach out to the Muslim world, explicitly rejected the formulation in Turkey last week.

“We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation," he said. "We consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Not that the president is averse to using Christian imagery: In what the White House billed as a "major" speech Tuesday, the president invoked a parable from the Sermon on the Mount.

Newsweek, meanwhile, recently printed a cover story entitled "The End of Christian America" – which prompted complaints and a call for the firing of the author of the piece, Editor Jon Meacham.

"As crucial as religion has been and is to the life of the nation, America's unifying force has never been a specific faith, but a commitment to freedom—not least freedom of conscience," he wrote.

Newsweek polling found that 62 percent of Americans believe theirs to be a Christian nation – which, despite being down from 69 percent last year, is a formidable number.

Yet the separation of Church and state remains relatively strong. Despite the efforts of many Christian evangelicals, prayer is generally kept out of schools, as is, by and large, the teaching of Creationism. The popular elected president supports abortion rights. And on one of the key social issues of the moment – gay marriage – the traditional Christian perspective appears to be losing ground, with increasing support for gay rights among the young and more states legalizing same-sex marriage.

One would not expect a "Christian nation" to move toward gay marriage; New York's new Catholic archbishop, Timothy Dolan – who suggests gay marriage would be a "detriment to civilization" – said Monday that Catholics are "above the times, we're timeless in our beliefs in our values and in our ethics and in our morality."

Yet Americans, more generally, are not "timeless in our beliefs," as evidenced by a consistent pattern of social change virtually since the nation's founding. Perceptions about everything from slavery to alcohol to women's rights have changed dramatically over the years.

Ultimately, the question of whether America is a "Christian nation" depends in large part on how you define the phrase. If a "Christian nation" is simply a nation made largely of Christians, then America is undeniably one. Despite the increase in non-religious Americans, they are still outnumbered more than 6-1 by Christians, according to Gallup.

But if a "Christian nation" is something else – a nation on which laws, behavior and policy are fundamentally tied to Christian ideals – then the question is more complex. The legal system has an undeniable basis in the Christian conception of morality, as does our societal conception of right and wrong.

Yet the phrase "Christian nation" can also be problematic. Domestically, it suggests the possible sublimation of individual rights in favor of a unified and inflexible worldview. Internationally, it creates an "us vs. them" as the U.S. fights for hearts and minds in countries with overwhelmingly Muslim populations.

Christian nation? Round Two
<H3 class=post_date>Posted on 04 July 2009 </H3>By John Brummett

Mail continues to drip in to express shock, horror, dismay and outright fury that I would dare write of my agreement with President Obama’s assertion that the United States is not a Christian nation.

So in honor of America’s glorious freedom and independence on this special day, I wish to revisit the matter.

That is to say that I’d like to reiterate how right Obama and I are and how vital it is to our nation that everyone understand and honor how right we are.

Actually, this is not a matter of agreeing with an opinion. It’s a matter of simple, powerful, compelling fact.

The First Amendment of our Constitution says that America is not a state-religion country, but a free-religion one. You’d best be glad of that. State-religion countries historically face dissent and strife and abuse and killing.

In the Treaty of Tripoli in 1797, President John Adams, a president highly regarded enough to get a big famous book written about him and a multi-part HBO series telecast on him, had us saying as follows:

“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 or enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan 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.”

It was Adams’ good fortune not to have had any Fox News during his time, though he did face other pestilence.

Seriously: What in the world are you people arguing about?

Actually, I know. You grudgingly understand that we do not write Christian religious adherence into our law. But you insist that we can call ourselves a Christian nation — and should do so — because we plainly were founded on what you like to call “Judeo-Christian principles.”

Sure, OK. Great.

I could cite values embraced in other religions as formative in the proudly ennobling principles of our free, brave and democratic republic; but, indeed, Judeo ones are in there big-time and Christian ones are in there big-time, too. We’re not supposed to kill or steal or bear false witness or covet our neighbor’s wife or any Argentine firecrackers.

Perhaps you also are confused over what might seem a contradiction: Ours is a country with a constitutionally mandated secular government, but with an unusually fervent religious culture and society. We go to church much more than Western Europeans.

But that is no contradiction at all. It is instead a vivid testament to our freedom. You’ll tend to embrace something more if it’s chosen by you rather than for you.

You’re wondering why we have all these religious holidays — Jesus’ supposed birthday, a day to give thanks — if we’re not a Christian nation. It’s because we’re a predominately Christian society that, as I readily agreed a few paragraphs ago, has a predominately Christian heritage.

But that is different from a Christian nation.

So you ask why we say “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance and “in God we trust” on our currency. That’s because people came along well after our national founding and added those little gems. But it doesn’t make us governmentally Christian.

God is a concept that transcends the Christian one. When the founders famously wrote that we were created equal, they were assuming someone or something did the creating. But that’s not a mandate that anyone worship this creator by an official definition or in any government-prescribed way.

So in honor of this Fourth of July, let’s all put out the flag, pop a firecracker, eat a hot dog and, on the morrow, go to the church or temple or synagogue or Eastern meditative session of our choice, or no religious assembly at all.

——-
John Brummett is a columnist for the Arkansas News Bureau in Little Rock. His e-mail address is jbrummett@arkansasnews.com; his telephone number is (501) 374-0699.

http://arkansasnews.com/2009/07/04/christi...tion-round-two/

10-01-07<H2 class=title>Is America a Christian Nation? What Both Left and Right Get Wrong</H2><H4 class=author>By John Fea </H4>Mr. Fea teaches American history at Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania, and is a writer for the History News Service.

Americans love their history, but seldom think historically. The problem is not that they don't pay enough attention to history. Americans spend millions each year on heritage vacations and history books. Politicians and pundits use history to justify their views.

The problem is a common propensity to mangle the past to suit current needs, a sort of indoctrination by historical example. Too many believe that the study of distant societies and events is worthless unless it is somehow useful to prove a current point.

So what do they do when the past disappoints? Or when historians tell them something in the past that doesn't conform to the way they view the world? Ideally, when this happens they should follow the evidence and do their best to tell stories that reflect the past in all its complexity. But this is hard to do.

Consider the current debate over the relationship between Christianity and the founding of the United States. Over the last two years I've given several public lectures that tried to answer the question of whether the United States was founded as a Christian nation. I never know how my audiences will respond to my presentation, especially since I am a Christian who teaches at a church-related college. But I'm sure that most are more interested in having their answer to this question confirmed by historical data than in being confronted with a past that they find uncomfortable.

Those who insist that America was founded as a Christian nation run roughshod over the historical record. They use the words of the Founding Fathers to support Republican jeremiads on the moral decay of American life. If only this country could return to its Christian roots, they say nostalgically, everything would be okay.

And how do they demonstrate that America was founded as a Christian nation? By selectively choosing texts from the writings of the Founders without any effort to explore them in the context of the 18th-century world in which they were written. Just because John Adams and George Washington quoted from the Bible or made reference to God does not mean that they were trying to construct a Christian nation. Granted, the Founding Fathers were the products of a Christian culture, but most of them were never comfortable with the beliefs that defined this culture. Very few of them would qualify for membership in today's evangelical churches.

Even so, the leaders of the Christian Right have demonstrated that they can find a useable past in the words of the Founders. A recent survey by Vanderbilt University's First Amendment Center found that 74 percent of Republicans and 50 percent of Democrats believe that the U.S. Constitution established a Christian nation. Jerry Falwell and D. James Kennedy, recently deceased evangelical leaders who led in promoting the idea that America is a Christian nation, did their work well.

But before we go too far in condemning the Christian Right on this front, let's remember that the secular left is not immune to errors of historical thinking. While evangelicals misinterpret the references to God in the words of the Founding Fathers, their critics simply have no idea what to make of those same quotations. Since they can't fathom why people today would make religious faith an essential part of their everyday lives, they have little interest in making sense of past worlds where such beliefs were important.

Such approaches to history seldom enable us to better understand the past. Thinking historically does not mean that people cannot learn from the past -- they should and must. But they should be careful how they use historical examples. Exploring the past requires a concern for what it was really like.

The past is like a foreign country. Those who enter it as guests should try to understand its foreignness in a way that respects our dead ancestors who inhabit it. We must not invade the past with the goal of remaking it into our own image.

The past may not always be useful when we want to invoke it. But only when we confront it head-on, without preconceived agendas, will we be able to learn from it and let it transform us. This is the lesson that both the Christian Right and some of its secular opponents need to take to heart.

http://hnn.us/articles/42835.html

Muslim Majority Countries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Musli...ority_countries


Pages in category "Christian-Majority Countries"
The following 48 pages are in this category, out of 48 total.




A

• Andorra
• Australia

B

• Belarus
• Belgium
• Bolivia
• Bulgaria

C

• Canada
• Cyprus

D

• Denmark

F

• Finland

G

• Greece

H

• Haiti

I

• Italy

J

• Jamaica

K

• Kenya

L

• Latvia

http://www.conservapedia.com/Category:Christian-Majority_Countries


L cont.

• Liechtenstein
• Lithuania

M

• Macedonia
• Malawi
• Malta
• Mexico
• Moldova
• Monaco

N

• New Zealand

P

• Philippines
• Poland
• Portugal

R

• Republic of Georgia
• Republic of Ireland
• Romania

S

• Samoa
• San Marino

S cont.

• Serbia
• Seychelles
• Slovakia
• Slovenia
• South Africa
• Spain
• Switzerland

T

• Timor-Leste
• Trinidad and Tobago

U

• Uganda
• Ukraine
• United Kingdom

V

• Vanuatu
• Vatican City
• Venezuela

To me, what separates the Muslim nations from the others is that there is no separation between the religion and the politics in Islam. Therefore, a Muslim nation will insist upon Sharia law (except Turkey, which is really a nation of Muslims, but not a Muslim nation for that reason).

Islam has not (and probably never will) had a reformation like Christianity or a 2000 year Rabbinic Diaspora like Judaism. Islam is SO SO DEMOCRATIC that there is no central authority from which to separate or against which to rebel.

Some Ummahs (communities) are very secular, do NOT insist on Sharia law, and blend in perfectly with their sectarian societies.

Others, like Saudi Arabia (our GOOD FRIENDS) have their weekly stoning in the soccer arena every Friday morning.

The Jews practiced this sort of barbarism, but it was about 3000 years ago.

The Christians did it, too, (remember Salem?), but it has been many centuries. And of course we all remember the Crusades.

There is a real problem with Islam, and it will take the Muslims to sort it all out. Nobody else can do it.

Jeff:

Thanks for the contribution...

So, America is a Christian majority nation...

France is a Catholic majority nation...

And Iraq is a Muslim majority nation like Turkey or something more?

I find it interesting that the most "democratic" religion by your standards -- Islam -- is also seen as the most intolerant...

Go figure.

I am not suggesting that you are wrong, but usually democracy and tolerance go hand in hand...though with France we are seeing that is not necessarily the case...

Or Algeria.

When Algeria had "free elections" about 15 years ago, they voted in an Islamic Republic. So the military had to overthrow the "elected" people and "install" more moderate ones.

This had happened in Turkey 3 times IIRC, and it might happen again because Erdoyan is a strict Muslim and the Parliament is very close to the edge on this issue.

Which is one reason why Turkey will NEVER EVER get into the EU. The Europeans are terrified of the Islamic United European Continent.

Not such a crazy fear.

My point was that Islam NEVER had a "Reformation" or declared a separation of church and state. Pure, fundamentalist Muslims cannot even COMPREHEND such a concept because Islam at its core cannot be separated from Sharia law.

And because it is truly democratic, there is no Pope, not World Council of Rabbis, to cut that cord.

It's a puzzlement.

The progression of family, tribe, religion, government, nation was not originally related to a particular place.
The evolution of nation-states with geographical boundaries came later. As such nation-states developed
multiple tribes and multiple religions, governments that transcended tribal and religious distinctions were
necessary. In situations like Iraq and Afganistan, where geographical boundaries were arbitarily imposed
by outsiders, the process of evolving nation-states is unfinished.

Unfinished?

How about "Not yet begun"?

Besides, nation-states are a European concept. Who says that tribal cultures should simply give up all that they know and "Get with the program"!

The program hasn't worked all that well, truth be told.

I understand. I was just musing that the most democratic of religions seems to be among the most intolerant though that is not the case throughout Islam.

As you note, some Muslim nations reject Sharia law or allow it to be practiced in certain areas, but not in others. I think Pakistan is one of those countries.

I think it is a shame that Turkey will not get into the EU because my belief is that part of the way to help the growth of Muslim nations or Muslim majority nations is to have them integrated into the international community in a more robust manner...

The more a nation like Turkey has its economic, social and political well being tied to that of Europe, the UN, and other geopolitical institutions, the more likely it is to understand that some of its former practices like coups are no longer practicable.

Just one man's opinion...

Why would one wish to define a nation as Christian or Muslim?