USA Politics

What about the other 27%? They don't count? USA might be Christian dominated, but that doesn't make it a Christian nation. One of the US' tenets is a separation of church and state, and while I don't find the money thing to be a big deal, there are big church and state issues out there.

In the US we have freedom of religion; there are many religions out there. Calling it a Christian country is counter intuitive.
 
The USA is a country where its citizens are predominately Christian. The US Constitution explicitly says it is not a Christian nation.
 
It is a non denominational nation that has a lot of Christians (practicing and nominally) in it. I am not sure why even Christians would want it to be a Christian nation. It is not like Christians are one unified force. Baptists would not like a Catholic driven country and vice versa. I do think it is fine to recognize there are a lot of Christians in the country and stuff like money, Christmas displays, crosses in cemetaries/monuments/etc really do not bother me at all.

The Supreme Court has laid out some clear guidelines for this sort of stuff. Copied this from http://undergod.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000066 and it matches what I recall from Con Law

Lemon Test: From the 1971 Supreme Court decision in Lemon v. Kurtzman, in which the Court struck down a state program providing financial aid to religious elementary and secondary schools. The Court said that for a statute to comply with the Establishment Clause, three things must be true:

  • the statute must have a secular legislative purpose
  • its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion
  • the statute must not foster "an excessive government entanglement with religion"
Lemon Test redux: From the 1997 Supreme Court decision in Agostini v. Felton, in which the Court held that allowing public school teachers to teach in parochial schools does not violate the Establishment Clause. The Court identified three primary criteria for determining that government aid has a primary effect of advancing religion:

  • The aid results in governmental indoctrination
  • The aid program defines its recipients by reference to religion
  • The aid creates an excessive entanglement between government and religion
Coercion Test: Support for the adoption of a test outlined by Justice Anthony Kennedy in his 1989 dissent inCounty of Allegheny v. ACLU. Believes the government does not violate the establishment clause unless it...

  • provides direct aid to religion in a way that would tend to establish a state church, or
  • coerces people to support or participate in religion against their will.
Endorsement Test: Proposed by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in the 1984 case of Lynch v. Donnelly. States that a government action is invalid if it creates a perception in the mind of a reasonable observer that the government is either endorsing or disapproving of religion.
Neutrality Test: Cited first as a guiding principle in Everson v. Board of Education, neutrality meant government was neither the ally nor adversary of religion. The government would treat religious groups the same as other similarly situated groups.
 
Matches my knowledge as well. Which means that school prayer to a captive audience is out, but In God We Trust is in. If it was In Jesus We Trust, it'd be out. Interesting, eh?
 
God is probably sufficiently neutral, though clearly it was intended as a Christian God, by definition if could be Greek Gods, Sun Gods, etc. I think it probably stays because it does not endorse a particular religion on it's face. That said, I go back to my original statement that it does not really matter, the only thing most people look at on bills is the number and/or the face to tell if it is a single or a twenty.
 
It's true. In the end, I'm actually okay with most ceremonial deism. I just really think E Pluribus Unum is way more badass.
 
For me, it's not the fact that they want to take that off of money. It's that it's something that's been standard and a tradition for many years in this country and now the far left wing liberals want to take it away.

What is ceremonial deism? I googled it, but the wiki explanation is too confusing and makes no sense.
 
Just because it's tradition doesn't make it OK. And I think the origin of that tradition is pretty outdated. A fear of atheism because they might be communists? Come on now.
 
Mosh said:
Just because it's tradition doesn't make it OK. And I think the origin of that tradition is pretty outdated. A fear of atheism because they might be communists? Come on now.
Click to expand...
It's just the fact that the liberals want to take away things that are traditions in this country and this is just one example of it.
Perun said:
What in the explanation confuses and makes no sense to you?
Click to expand...
Well, after reading it again, I now have a better understanding.
 
It's just the overall thing in general of the liberals wanting to take away traditions. Now, do I dare bring up the one about the Pledge Of Allegiance not being required in schools? Is there anything I can post here that others will actually agree with? We need more republicans to post in here! :lol:
 
All I'm getting at is that you are picking on liberals for 'taking away' arbitrary things, but seem fine if conservatives create arbitrary things.

The thing is this, I remember being in school with a kid that wouldn't say the Pledge of Alliance. It was against his religion. So, would you be ok saying something like "one nation under Allah" or "one nation under Jehova" for instance?
 
If you're in America, you should take pride in this country and the freedoms it has to offer. Another thing I hate is people who come from Mexico and such to escape the harsh lifestyle and then display the flag of their country outside of their house. You came here to get away from your country so why would you want to take pride in something you wanted to escape?
 
You know, displaying your national flag and taking pride in your heritage does not automatically rejecting your new host or home country. Besides, escaping harsh realities in your home country is not the same as not liking that country. Many people go abroad because they have no opportunities in their home countries, but plan on returning, or at least end up missing their homes.
 
Many do, others however come to the country because it's literally their only choice.
 
So, if it's their only choice because they have no opportunities in their home country, they are coming here for a better lifestyle and should take pride in this country and the better lifestyle it has to offer over their home country.
 
You're making this too easy for yourself. Why should they take pride in a place where they are forced to live because they have no other choice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top