America is not now, nor was it ever, a Christian nation. If you can't acknowledge that fact, nothing else you say matters.

@JacksonNought lol... you can't just "wish" it away... it happened.
And it is arguably the reason for America's prosperity, that was the intent anyway.
And it worked.

@rway

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..."

— U.S. Treaty with Tripoli, 1797

@JacksonNought seriously... you want to play out-of-context quote wars, instead of actually thinking it through?
We were trying to appease the Barbary Muslims so we could stop paying protection money for not kidnapping and enslaving our sailors. Which they did anyway. So naturally, we had to go in to put a stop to it a few years later anyway... so much for treaties with Islam.
First, we had to create a Navy.

If we're just doing quote-wars, how bout this one (you know who Providence is, right?)
John Jay, the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, wrote in a letter to a friend, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

@JacksonNought you're trying to argue that we're not explicitly a Christian nation... something that you probably infer as some sort of theocracy with public Law cut-&-pasted straight from the Bible. That would be a valid argument, although a different argument altogether.
First of all, Theocracy of any sort is not Christian at all. So a "Biblical Theocracy" wouldn't be a Christian nation anyway.
America was founded on the notion of Individual Sovereignty, endowed by "the laws of nature and of nature's God..." as Jefferson put it in the Declaration.
Who do you suppose "nature's God" is supposed to be?
And, from where did you think the entire notion of Individual Sovereignty evolved over the last couple thousand years?
Our entire society was designed to accommodate and support the beliefs, practices, and social mores of a Christian populace; and to be in no-way contradictory to that culture.
In fact, all of Western Civilization is an outgrowth of Christianity. And America, IMHO, is the epitome of Western Civilization; or, still has the potential to be anyway.

@rway

Theocracy of any sort is not Christian at all

Yeah, and next you'll tell me anyone who commits a crime isn't a "true Christian". What happened to "I am the LORD thy God...you shall have no other gods before me"? Christianity is all about obedience and subjugation. Just look at how the Puritans ran their society. I'd argue that a Theocracy is the ultimate goal of the Bible.

Who do you suppose "nature's God" is supposed to be?

It doesn't really matter, now does it? The Constitution does not mention any god or Christianity, but it does mention the free exercise of religion, so all religions are allowed in the US - Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Satanism, Scientology, Pastafarianism, etc.

from where did you think the entire notion of Individual Sovereignty evolved over the last couple thousand years?

Probably from Enlightenment values and free thinkers? I do not see "individual sovereignty" as a Christian value - just look at how Christians argued for slavery, against mixed-race and same-sex marriages, against abortion... Christians do not recognize individual sovereignty, as they think we are servants of their god and our bodies are subject to his demands.

Our entire society was designed to accommodate and support the beliefs, practices, and social mores of a Christian populace; and to be in no-way contradictory to that culture.

Hmm, you might want to tell the Constitution that. The Constitution directly contradicts the Ten Commandments and the Bible by allowing freedom of religion. America is even less Christian now that slavery is illegal, women can vote and go to college, same-sex couples can marry, etc.

@JacksonNought

1. Then you'd argue incorrectly. Christianity is all about the individual's personal relationship with the Divine, and the attempt to emulate the persona of Jesus Christ. That's why it's called "Christianity".
   There is no role for the State in that relationship, the State is something entirely separate.
   The State has no business enforcing, undermining, encouraging, or discouraging any religious practice; Christian or otherwise.
   The State has the sole business of enforcing secular Law. What may be confusing you, is the fact that secular Law in America has its roots in Christian guidelines... since we are, after all, a Christian nation.
2. It matters.
   Christianity is voluntary. The fact that you are not required to call yourself a Christian in America is one of the tenets of Christianity upon which America was founded.
3. Where do you think Enlightenment values came from?
   Individual Sovereignty is the logical implication of the idea that you have just as much of a personal relationship with God as everybody else does; a radical notion, historically, which evolved through many examples of societies getting it wrong.
   Religion is power, and power corrupts people when they get it. See: Medieval Catholics, Islam, probably whatever Puritan examples you're referring to, and most recently: "Progressives"... who would never even admit to themselves that theirs is a religion at all.
4. Again, the State has no business "allowing" or "not allowing" your choice of religion; it's none of the State's business. Choosing God and subjugating yourself to His will is entirely up to you, an exercise of your free will, as a sovereign individual.
   If you were merely following a mandate from the State, then you'd be nothing more than a tool of the State with no will of your own; just going through the motions to avoid the public stocks... or the gulags... or the SJW's "cancel culture".
   Slavery is a direct violation of individual sovereignty. The Founders knew that they'd made it illegal the moment they signed the Constitution, it just took a while (and a war) to get that notion institutionalized.
   Who can vote is a secular question, nothing to do with Christianity.
   Marriage is not that simple. As a religious ceremony, it's none of the State's business. The State explicitly does not have the authority to declare what counts as a "valid" marriage under the auspices of any particular religion. And they certainly have no business using clergy from "State-approved" religions as instruments of the State to certify those marriages.
   As a civil union, the State has no authority to treat any two people any differently than any other two people. There's nothing "un-Christian" about that, it's purely a secular matter.

@rway

1. So I guess you'd consider many many many Christians in the US "fake Christians" then - since they try to inject their religion into the state, like Arkansas Rep. Jason Rapert or Ted Cruz, or push their Christianity into the public? You are correct, the State's role is to push Secular Law. But you are wrong, secularism is 100% antithetical to Christian guidelines, and we are most certainly not a Christian nation. But if you want to claim secularism is Christian, then go ahead - remove "God" from state buildings and schools and currency, remove "God" from the Pledge, remove all courthouse 10 Commandment monuments, and truly enforce secularism... then I'll call the US a Christian nation for you.

2. There is a huge difference between "you don't have to call yourself a Christian" and "you must abide by Christian rules". It doesn't matter so much if you can be a non-Christian if you still have to live your life as one, with rules such as Blue Laws, marriage definitions, discrimination, government endorsement, etc. Your "Christianity is voluntary" assertion is a basic mob shakedown tactic - oh, you don't have to pay us protection money, but then it isn't our fault when we break your legs.

3. Many founders of the Enlightenment were Christians, that is true. But they expressly turned away from organized religion and controversial stances which led to conflict. Are you willing to condemn all government representatives who speak publicly about using the Bible as their guide for law? Should we reform the Supreme Court so that over 70% aren't Catholic?

4. Correct, the State cannot control what religion you follow. Though it certainly likes to butt its head into private matters regardless. For decades (and even still today) Rastafarians and Native Americans were breaking the law by using drugs in their sincere religious practices. You are also right, the Constitution should have made slavery illegal, yet it didn't for almost 100 years - and who argued in favor of slavery and mostly led to the Civil War? That's right, Christians, believing the Bible made slavery okay. Who can vote or go to school or have a job is indeed a secular question... but again, Christians argued heavily in favor of only white males being allowed those rights, since once more the Bible apparently mandates women shut up and only serve men. Marriage is pretty simple, once the government got involved. Once the government started granting rights based upon marriage (inheritance, custody, hospital visitation and decisions, taxes, insurance, etc) it became pretty simple, yet Christians used the Bible to argue that races shouldn't mix, and then that same-sex couples shouldn't marry. Religious ceremonies are completely separate - hell, you can even engage in polygamy in a religious capacity - but you still need State authentication for the marriage to be recognized by the government. Why then did Christians argue against allowing civil marriages that went against their religion? Remember Kim Davis?

@JacksonNought

1. Secular Law is not a direct transliteration from the Bible, and it shouldn't be, but it's certainly not antithetical; most obvious example is don't kill other people.
   There is no example of a legitimate public Law that contradicts Christian principles.
   You seem to disagree: so... give me an example.

The basis of secular Law is your rights. You only have rights because God, or "nature's God" if you prefer. Acknowledging the roots of your entire society on public buildings is both a secular and an entirely academic practice.

2. Not shopping on Sunday doesn't make you a Christian. You're expected to live your life within the secular Laws of your community, regardless of your opinions over their necessity or their origin.
   The extent to which those laws reflected Christian values is just more evidence that we were, indeed, established as a Christian society.
   So, which is it... is America too Christian... or not Christian at all?

3. Lawmakers should be using the Constitution as their "guide for law".
   If they stick with Christian principles, then they're not likely to violate the Framework that was built upon those very principles. But the Constitution is still the standard for secular Law, not their personal interpretation of any religious dogma.
   If they try to cherry-pick quotes out of the Bible to support their actions... that's neither a good idea, nor is it legitimate authority.
   It's none of my business what any Supreme Court Justice claims as their religion; Catholic, Christian, Progressive, etc., as long as it doesn't affect their job in any way. If it does, they're wrong, whether I "agree" or not.
   It is, however, worth considering whether a proposed Justice has made a personal commitment that they consider transcendent to their responsibilities in the mundane world. While Christianity does not condone that deceit, other religions either allow it or encourage it outright.
   So, no matter who it is, you still have to decide whether you trust their integrity or not. If you're just going by your prejudices about what they call themselves, you're making a superficial and bigoted judgment anyway.

4. Your religious freedoms do not supersede secular Law. If your religion demands human sacrifice, then you're out of luck. Same with drugs that your community has outlawed, although I would argue the Constitutional legitimacy of such laws.
   Please explain how you figure that Christianity supports the practice of slavery.
   The claim that "some people have made that argument..." tells me nothing. What was their argument? And what makes you think they were right?
   The Government getting involved in the marriage business is exactly why it's become a problem. It has no legitimate authority to intervene in personal relationships between sovereign citizens.

@rway

1. I disagree that rights come from some higher power. Rights are really only as much as your government allows. There is no absolute morality or inherent rights. Go to Russia, which is a supremely-Christian country, and same-sex couples cannot hold hands or kiss in public. Go to the UK, a Christian country utilizing parliamentary democracy, and until recently you couldn't blaspheme. Uganda had a Christian "kill the gays" bill, making homosexuality a capital crime. We are fortunate to live in the USA, which has a wide array of rights, even if some rights took hundreds of years to be granted.

There is no example of a legitimate public Law that contradicts Christian principles.

Well then you seem like a Progressive Christian, as much as I am sure you hate that term. Look at many of the Christians in the USA who think that abortion, marriage equality, Satanists and Muslims freely practicing, swearing an oath on something other than the Bible, saying "Happy Holidays", etc, should all be banned. Hell, the entire Republican party has a narrative that you aren't a "true American" if you aren't a Christian.

2. Your options are both correct. The USA is most certainly not a Christian nation, which is clear from the Constitution. However, it is definitely too Christian, as Christians are the majority and those in power have forced their dogma into legislation for centuries, going against the Constitution. You said that being a Christian nation means allowing for individual sovereignty and following secular law, but now are saying that these forced Biblical laws are a reflection of Christianity? So which is it? Why couldn't same-sex couples get married until 2015, despite government civil marriages taking place for decades? Why couldn't women own property until the early 1900s, and then only if they were married? Why is prostitution still illegal in essentially every state, and why is it illegal in many places for women to be topless where men are allowed to be topless? The country has been majority Christian since its founding, and still is today... if you think that we are a Christian nation, and that means full individual freedom and secular-based laws, then why haven't the majority Christians granted full rights centuries ago? You can't say we were founded as a Christian nation if you don't acknowledge the lack of rights as part of Christianity.

3. We can agree on this mostly. It shouldn't matter what their religion is, as long as they follow the Constitution and secular law, and do not legislate their dogma. I certainly think there are Christians who can do this, but there are most definitely ones who put their religion first, above the Constitution. I live in PA, and there was a candidate this last election running for Congress, and I would drive by her signs all the time. They said "God, Family, Country, Jobs & Security". She put God above Country. That is not a platform I would want to vote for. You can also see other representatives, such as Jason Rapert and former representative Mike Huckabee, who are part of the NACL (National Association of Christian Lawmakers), which is an organization solely intent on injecting Biblical law into American law. It shouldn't happen, but it definitely does. Look at Joe Biden, our current president. He is an avowed devout Catholic, yet he supports a woman's right to choose. Do you think he is not a Christian because of that? Many Christians think that way, despite Biden following secular law in allowing for abortion.

4. We can agree on this as well. Of course your religion needs to be in-tune with secular law, which is why human sacrifice or cannibalism isn't allowed, or why NXIVM was shut down due to its kidnapping / raping crimes. We also agree that the Constitutional legitimacy is sketch on certain laws that restrict religion, especially when they are victimless crimes, such as personal drug use. My argument is that these victimless crimes are often outlawed base on Christian principles. As for slavery, the Bible pretty much condones it, and offers instructions for beating slaves, being owned by your husband, marrying your rapist, being enslaved as a war conquest, etc. You also had many many Christians using their religion and the Bible to justify and defend slavery, as well as Jim Crow laws and other forms of segregation - they said the Bible didn't want races to mix, and that white men were superior. That isn't my opinion, it is a plain fact that people used the Bible to defend slavery, just as they did to defend bans on mixed-race marriages, and just as they did to defend bans on same-sex marriages. You may not think they were true Christians, or that their actions were Christian, but there are many many who would disagree with you.

The Government getting involved in the marriage business is exactly why it's become a problem. It has no legitimate authority to intervene in personal relationships between sovereign citizens.

I actually agree with this. However, they have become involved, and grant tax breaks and other legal rights to people who are married, which is why they cannot discriminate who can get married based on one religious interpretation. Yet we did have that discrimination, with anti-miscegenation laws and DOMA. Try filing your taxes jointly with someone you've only married in a religious ceremony, without a government license, and see if they let you. Try opening a joint bank account, or receiving a spouse's insurance or pension, if you are not legally recognized as married by the government. You can't. The government is involved now, which means all citizens have the right to marry. If we want that to change, then the government needs to remove itself, and all federal rights get stripped away for everybody, including religiously married couples. Or the rights remain, but can apply to any couples, regardless of if they are married or not - though I am sure the amount of people claiming to be dependents for insurance will skyrocket.

@JacksonNought

1. What "...your government allows" are privileges.
   Rights, on the other hand, transcend Government entirely. That's the entire point of the Constitution, to protect your Rights from being violated by the Government, or by anybody else.
   That entire concept is predicated on the notion that your Rights are implications of your existence as an autonomous creation of "nature's God".
   Accordingly; no other person, nor any collective of persons, nor any agent of a collective such as the Government, has the sovereignty over you to violate those rights at their discretion.
   You have sovereignty over you... nobody else.
   If "rights" could be granted by the Government, then they could be revoked just as easily. That's not how rights work. That's how "civil rights" work, otherwise known as: privileges.
   That distinction is absolutely fundamental in trying to understand America, and without that understanding, any further examination might be premature.
   There is no such thing as a "Christian, kill the gays bill". Calling something "Christian" doesn't make it so. That would actually be an example of the Christian concept of "blasphemy".
   "Progressive Christian" is a self-contradicting term. What's right doesn't change. If it does, then either you were wrong in the first place about the "Christian" position, or you're wrong now.
   If your change of view is driven by new awareness and reason then it may be the right move, if it's driven by popular trends or secular peer-pressure... then probably not.

2. Women owned property since before our founding... they could vote as well. Women's suffrage was actually included in at least one of the original State Constitutions... Massachusetts, I think.
   The Government is made of people, and people have unlimited capacity to fuck things up.
   Besides, we started as a colony of Puritans, and were still evolving incrementally away from a Catholic theocracy. Culturally we still have any manner of pseudo-Christian hangups that you can imagine. But the point is: none of them are supported by the Constitution.
   I don't know of any Constitutional basis to outlaw going topless, prostitution, etc., etc. Nor do I know of any Christian argument for minding other people's business. There's nothing "Christian" about that.
   You can't blame the Framework of America for the fact that people continue to violate it.
   The Constitution was established as a goal on the horizon, and we've yet to meet that goal. But we only move further away from it every time we abandon the original premise, that: Every single person is a sovereign individual with God-given rights, to be protected from each other exactly the same as everybody else.
   Doesn't sound that complicated, does it?

3. Yes, I think Biden's position goes against the Christian notion that you don't have the right to violate another human's right to live (or any of their other rights.)
   The Government has ONE domestic purpose: to protect individual rights.
   Biden's position on abortion is an abdication of that duty.
   Whether he's a "Christian" or not I couldn't tell you. Many Christians suck at it, and all fall short. But if he's a "devout Catholic", then he's on the wrong track already...

4. Any behavior that is outlawed based on (supposedly) "Christian" principles, that have no basis in the Constitution, is an unjust law. It happens... I know, but it's still not legitimate Law at all. That was clarified in Marbury v Madison (1803), which basically concluded that if it's not supported by the Constitution, it's not the Law.
   It's just going to cost you your life savings trying to prove it, that's all...
   Either way, and to reiterate: there's nothing "Christian" about minding other people's business.
   People have tried to cherry-pick the Bible to defend all kinds of stupid shit. Were they making valid arguments or not? I would bet that they were not, simply based on their conclusions.
   Besides, the Bible is a collection of books, selected by men (Catholics, no less.)
   I think it makes a great reference, and I think even historians agree that it's pretty accurate.
   But, The Bible and Christianity are not the same thing. As far as I know, Jesus never once mentioned it. If it was that important... you'd think he might have said at least once, "hey, so... there's gonna be this Book that you'll want to get your hands on..."
   About Marriage: you're right, the way to fix it is for Government to get out of the marriage business, where they never belonged in the first place. Any legal "benefits" of State-sanctioned marriage are simply unconstitutional. I don't know of any Constitutional basis, anyway.
   Any benefits of marriage conferred by a private entity would be entirely up to them, insofar as they comply with other laws.

@rway

You are certainly interesting. You have a very different view of Christianity than I have come across most times in my life. 99% of the Christians I encounter (in real life and through mass media) are very clear about the Bible being the word of God (or inspired by) and needing to be followed, and that God's word is final and cannot change, even with society evolving, meaning rules from the days of Christ still need to be followed today. You remind me more of a Christian like Brenda Marie Davies (God is Grey).

1. You are correct vis-à-vis privileges, but I don't think there are any inherent "rights" that transcend government law. At any time a government can take a right away, and you either have to accept it, move to where it is allowed, or be imprisoned or executed. I fall back on the slavery topic, as even after the Constitution was in place, it took almost 100 years for slavery to be abolished, and even then black people were not granted equality. There are also disagreements on what rights people actually have. As I said before, Christians argued that mixed-race couples and same-sex couples didn't have the right to marry, that women didn't have the right to own property, etc. The only way to have true human rights I suppose is anarchy, with no government stepping in. As for the "Christian Uganda Kill The Gays Bill", I am just repeating what those who enacted it claim. It was inspired by Evangelicals from the US coming to Uganda and peddling lies about homosexuality being akin to pedophilia, and giving large donations to influence their law. You are roaming into "No True Scotsman" territory, telling people they are not true Christians if they act in certain ways.

2. Fair enough, at least you recognize that the Constitution allows for unalienable rights, and it is constantly violated by those "holier than thou" in power who outlaw things based on their personal convictions - like drugs or sex work. However, we still disagree on whether this is a Christian stance or not.

3. I guess we have to disagree with this one as well, as I believe in the fundamental right that one's own body is inviolable, subject to one's will alone. This includes being against forced motherhood.

4. Again, you are an interesting Christian, as many many many Christians do cherry pick the Bible and have very strict principles on what secular laws should be allowed based on the Bible. You say they are not true Christians, I am sure they would disagree with you. Many people on this site in fact.

@JacksonNought Where did they get the idea that the Bible is the immutable Word of God... from the Bible?

1. Then you disagree with the fundamental premise of America, Western Civilization, and the whole notion of "basic human rights".
   The Government explicitly does not have the authority to take away their protection of any one of your rights, without going though due process prescribed by your consent through your Representative; the process being initiated solely by your actions, not by the Government.
   What part of lying to get people killed strikes you as "Christian" behavior?
   The True Scotsman would apply if the definition of "Christian" were subjective. It's not.
   It's often mischaracterized... that's different.
   Christian literally means "Christ One", or, someone who is trying to emulate the persona of Jesus Christ. That's it.
   It has nothing to do with following a checklist of things that Jews did in the desert 5,000 years ago; or even doing everything exactly the way Jesus did. It's about the fundamentals, and there is little disagreement about those even among non-Christians.
   Love one another. Help when you can. Mind your business.
   Nothing that I'm aware of about "Hating Fags!!" Quite the opposite.

2. Yes, I would guess that there is more Dogma encoded into our bodies of Law than there is legitimate Law. Drug laws, prostitution, Income Tax, Abortion, Property Tax (let's just say: all involuntary taxes), we could probably come up with a pretty long list. And the majority of that list would fall under "religious dogma" because some nebulous "deity" demands it, because that's the most convenient excuse; whether that deity be some twisted personification of God, Allah, the Spaghetti Monster, or the imaginary "Collective" makes no difference. As long as it is presumed to have sovereignty over you, that's all it takes to dissolve your rights entirely.
   There's nothing "Christian" about any of it. If you still disagree, then... how so?

3. But you don't agree that it applies to everybody?

4. Christianity was around for several hundred years before Constantine gave up trying to stamp it out, took it over as the State religion, commissioned the Bible, and corrupted it with all the various local Pagan religions to get them on-board. They called the result: Roman Catholicism, and installed an entire hierarchy of quite-fallible people between you & God. There's nothing "Christian" about that.
   All it did was pave the way for the Inquisition and such atrocities... and generally the era of self-righteous busybodies minding other people's business.

@rway it seems we are at an agreement on most things. The only things I guess we won't agree on are what is actually Christianity (I really wish it was as you speak, but I've seen a majority of others with a different understanding) and whether the US is a Christian nation. But as far as rights go, and personal sovereignty, and religion being twisted by those seeking power and control, we agree.

@JacksonNought Well, if you think that is Christianity, then you're right... we're not a nation founded on that bullshit. If it's any consolation, they'll find out how wrong they were someday.
The Founders got it right, though, perhaps precisely because they pared away all the denomination-specific fluff that never had anything to do with Christianity in the first place.
Cheers