Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

As the topic title says I'm interested in how the discourse in the US justifies the large amounts of Christian rhetoric that seems to permeate US politics. Not a new thing for me to be wondering about, but I will admit the debate about gay marriage has made me think about it more recently, particularly since Romney stated: 'There is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action'.

This isn't supposed to be a thread about the topic of gay marriage but just the general conversation (if any) that occurs in the US about any intersection of Christianity and politics, such as the President's religion, 'In God We Trust' on notes etc and how that doesn't get shot down for being Church in the State's business.

Because the prevailing politics of a nation have little to do with its constitution in reality, which is as it should be.
The founders of the USA were by-and-large secular, but the modern populace (and by extention the people they elect) are overtly religious.

Lux_Lucis wrote:
This isn't supposed to be a thread about the topic of gay marriage but just the general conversation (if any) that occurs in the US about any intersection of Christianity and politics, such as the President's religion, 'In God We Trust' on notes etc and how that doesn't get shot down for being Church in the State's business.

Because those aren't based on laws respecting an establishment of religion, even in the broadest sense; unless you consider "God/god" and establishment of religion (and you shouldn't).

So it's not really a specific religion such as Christianity that is objectionable but a religious institution such as the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church?

Lux_Lucis wrote:So it's not really a specific religion such as Christianity that is objectionable but a religious institution such as the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church?

Not really. The gist of it is that any given politician can make a decision based on religious motives, or use religious rhetoric, but he cannot sign into law any form of state religion or, more broadly, prohibit the practice of any particular religion. The latter part sometimes runs into controversy where it is claimed that a general law is religiously discriminatory. The latest example of this is the furor over the mandated carriage of health insurance which covers birth control, with the Catholic Church claiming that said mandate violates their religious freedom (It does, but not in a sense which violates the Constitution.).

dogma wrote:

Lux_Lucis wrote:So it's not really a specific religion such as Christianity that is objectionable but a religious institution such as the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church?

Not really. The gist of it is that any given politician can make a decision based on religious motives, or use religious rhetoric, but he cannot sign into law any form of state religion or, more broadly, prohibit the practice of any particular religion. The latter part sometimes runs into controversy where it is claimed that a general law is religiously discriminatory. The latest example of this is the furor over the mandated carriage of health insurance which covers birth control, with the Catholic Church claiming that said mandate violates their religious freedom (It does, but not in a sense which violates the Constitution.).

There was also the example of people trying to put the commandments on courthouse lawns, as well. Even though the commandments are utterly powerless in the court of law and will be ignored.

While I was trying to avoid using gay marriage as an example (so passé), the rhetoric about marriage being between a man and a woman etc is surely religious? And yet it exists as a legal state

the best time for this conversation is around xmas, and the inevitable cries from fox news about the war on xmas.

It is against the constitution to promote any one religion over any others. so putting up a nativity scene on public property is a no-no. putting up prayer banners in a public school and the cross's on public property in California. They're wrong and everyone knows it. But as the US is 83%ish christian they don't see a problem with this because its their religion being promoted.

These are promoting one religion over all others, which the christians with tv shows know, and they want to display their holy symbols anyways. But watch how they backpedal if you suggest putting up a islamic symbol on public property. or teaching the Koran in school.

people are already trying to get rid of "in god we trust" off from our money, and "under god" out of our pledge. Which are promoting religions with some sort of god.

but as bad as all that is, what scares me the most is how every president swears undying loyalty to a foreign nation.

sirlynchmob wrote:the best time for this conversation is around xmas, and the inevitable cries from fox news about the war on xmas.

It is against the constitution to promote any one religion over any others. so putting up a nativity scene on public property is a no-no. putting up prayer banners in a public school and the cross's on public property in California. They're wrong and everyone knows it. But as the US is 83%ish christian they don't see a problem with this because its their religion being promoted.

These are promoting one religion over all others, which the christians with tv shows know, and they want to display their holy symbols anyways. But watch how they backpedal if you suggest putting up a islamic symbol on public property. or teaching the Koran in school.

people are already trying to get rid of "in god we trust" off from our money, and "under god" out of our pledge. Which are promoting religions with some sort of god.

but as bad as all that is, what scares me the most is how every president swears undying loyalty to a foreign nation.

Care to explain the last bit?

Lux_Lucis wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:the best time for this conversation is around xmas, and the inevitable cries from fox news about the war on xmas.

It is against the constitution to promote any one religion over any others. so putting up a nativity scene on public property is a no-no. putting up prayer banners in a public school and the cross's on public property in California. They're wrong and everyone knows it. But as the US is 83%ish christian they don't see a problem with this because its their religion being promoted.

These are promoting one religion over all others, which the christians with tv shows know, and they want to display their holy symbols anyways. But watch how they backpedal if you suggest putting up a islamic symbol on public property. or teaching the Koran in school.

people are already trying to get rid of "in god we trust" off from our money, and "under god" out of our pledge. Which are promoting religions with some sort of god.

but as bad as all that is, what scares me the most is how every president swears undying loyalty to a foreign nation.

Care to explain the last bit?

All US presidents have to pledge allegiance to Israel.

sirlynchmob wrote:
It is against the constitution to promote any one religion over any others. so putting up a nativity scene on public property is a no-no.

I know of several cases in which it was deemed Unconstitutional to deny religious groups access to public facilities, so I doubt that the erection of a Nativity scene would be found such. At least insofar as it was not found that the same public facilities were denied to members of other faiths wishing to erect similar displays during their own holy days.

sirlynchmob wrote:
but as bad as all that is, what scares me the most is how every president swears undying loyalty to a foreign nation.

What?

This is the Presidential oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

dogma wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
It is against the constitution to promote any one religion over any others. so putting up a nativity scene on public property is a no-no.

I know of several cases in which it was deemed Unconstitutional to deny religious groups access to public facilities, so I doubt that the erection of a Nativity scene would be found such. At least insofar as it was not found that the same public facilities were denied to members of other faiths wishing to erect similar displays during their own holy days.

sirlynchmob wrote:
but as bad as all that is, what scares me the most is how every president swears undying loyalty to a foreign nation.

What?

This is the Presidential oath of office:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Romney: Need for stronger defense of Israel

If we disagree with them [Israelis] like this president has time and time again, we don’t do it in public like he’s done it, we do it in private. And we let the Israeli leadership describe what they believe the right course is going forward. –

"And I believe America must say — and the best way to have peace in the Middle East is not for us to vacillate and to appease, but is to say, we stand with our friend Israel. We are committed to a Jewish state in Israel. We will not have an inch of difference between ourselves and our ally, Israel."

http://www.boston.com/Boston/politicalintelligence/2012/03/mitt-romney-tells-pro-israel-group-would-not-hesitate-attack-iran-president/v9er6RtZufymMLqrrAtmjM/story.html
"Mitt Romney on Tuesday launched a two-pronged attack on President Obama’s Iran policy, penning a provocative op-ed in which he outlined some of the steps he would take to prepare for a US attack against Tehran’s nuclear facilities and telling a pro-Israel lobbying group that if elected president he would not hesitate to use military force to prevent Israel’s arch-enemy from acquiring a nuclear weapon."

show me any candidate who did not give unwavering support to israel.

Religious sounding commentary 90% political soundbyte.
Even Stalin who spent most of his leadership career persecuting the church was allowing Moscovites to say things not too dissimilar to 'in God We Trust; in the waning months of 1941 when Guderians army was getting closer and closer.

So how much more will politicians or political bodies in countries with free religion bring out the God card. Quite a lot I say. New Labour said it 'didnt do God' however Brown and Blair was seen in churches at election times just like the rest.

sirlynchmob wrote:
show me any candidate who did not give unwavering support to israel.

There's a difference between pledging support to another nation, and proclaiming undying loyalty to one. We support Israel because they're an important ally in the Middle East, at least for right now. We also support them because its a popular position within the Jewish community, and therefore politically prudent. Of course, Israel isn't our only ally in the region, we also support Saudi Arabia and Jordan, among others, and formerly supported Egypt.

To some extent we still do support Egypt. It's just that we're kinda waiting to see how their political situation turns out when the dust settles (and it still hasn't).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And on the gay marriage issue: yes, it's religion-based. Any and all attempts to defend it with non-religious arguments always fail.

While even conservatives realize that we cannot pass any laws stating "though shall be Christian", they have no problem passing any amount of laws aimed at making you act like they think a Christian should.

The gross misunderstanding, (and often its being misunderstood deliberately to advance whatever agenda of the month), of "Separation of Church and State" and what it means in the United States is both rife and appalling. The founding fathers of the U.S. founded this nation as a Christian nation. That being said they also did not want to have instituted a "State Religion" ie The Church of England. They expected the citizenry to be people of faith and moral values but just what that faith was in was up to the individuals discretion as long as it did not violate the good order and discipline of the communities or the Law. The U.S. also did things with its legal system to not be like old English Law was at the time where you were presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Activist Atheists as well as other people who want to define the rules we live by for their own power and agendas (state-ists) Have for some time now been suing right left and center when ever they have an axe to grind on how this or that religious view point or symbol should not in their minds be displayed or invoked in public or in government situations often saying that they are offended or misstating the separation of church and state clause. There is no right to not be offended. That is your personal choice.

Now on to the topic of Gay Marriage. Personally I have wondered why the LGBT community has not just formed their own Church and gone on their merry way with it rather than arguing with the Catholics, Baptists, Episcopals, Mormons, or what have you. Then saying we have freedom of religion and our religion preforms LGBT marriages that are recognized as such by the church. And let the legal eagles chew on that one in the legislatures. You can be people of faith and be LGBT and live good loving lives with your significant other. God will sort it out I'm sure.

Lux_Lucis wrote:As the topic title says I'm interested in how the discourse in the US justifies the large amounts of Christian rhetoric that seems to permeate US politics.

We justify Christian rhetoric because the United States is Christian.

(That's basically what the justification boils down to.)

Zakiriel wrote:The gross misunderstanding, (and often its being misunderstood deliberately to advance whatever agenda of the month), of "Separation of Church and State" and what it means in the United States is both rife and appalling. The founding fathers of the U.S. founded this nation as a Christian nation. That being said they also did not want to have instituted a "State Religion" ie The Church of England. They expected the citizenry to be people of faith and moral values but just what that faith was in was up to the individuals discretion as long as it did not violate the good order and discipline of the communities or the Law. The U.S. also did things with its legal system to not be like old English Law was at the time where you were presumed guilty until proven innocent.

Activist Atheists as well as other people who want to define the rules we live by for their own power and agendas (state-ists) Have for some time now been suing right left and center when ever they have an axe to grind on how this or that religious view point or symbol should not in their minds be displayed or invoked in public or in government situations often saying that they are offended or misstating the separation of church and state clause. There is no right to not be offended. That is your personal choice.

Now on to the topic of Gay Marriage. Personally I have wondered why the LGBT community has not just formed their own Church and gone on their merry way with it rather than arguing with the Catholics, Baptists, Episcopals, Mormons, or what have you. Then saying we have freedom of religion and our religion preforms LGBT marriages that are recognized as such by the church. And let the legal eagles chew on that one in the legislatures. You can be people of faith and be LGBT and live good loving lives with your significant other. God will sort it out I'm sure.

see, here's one who believes his own propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli
November 4, 1796
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] 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.

note the first line. 20 years after our independence here we are proclaiming we are not, nor ever have been a christian nation.

Zakiriel wrote:The founding fathers of the U.S. founded this nation as a Christian nation.

Eh, sort of. The Founders established the government called the United States of America, nationhood (as in the collective identity of a group of people) came about well after that fact. Was it Christian? Sure. Does it matter what it was, or even is? Not really. Nations change over time, just look at religious trends in Europe.

Zakiriel wrote:
Activist Atheists as well as other people who want to define the rules we live by for their own power and agendas...

So, basically everyone then.

Zakiriel wrote:
Personally I have wondered why the LGBT community has not just formed their own Church and gone on their merry way with it rather than arguing with the Catholics, Baptists, Episcopals, Mormons, or what have you.

Simple, those are all political groups and if the LGBT community wants same-sex marriage, the elements of those political groups that oppose state recognition of such are going to be opponents.

sirlynchmob wrote:
note the first line. 20 years after our independence here we are proclaiming we are not, nor ever have been a christian nation.

There's a difference between a nation and a government or state. Hence the term nation-state.

There's a large Jewish lobby though and I assume an increasing Muslim presence in politics as well, how is that fitting into the Christian rhetoric? Or is it still overwhelmingly Christian?

Lux_Lucis wrote:There's a large Jewish lobby though and I assume an increasing Muslim presence in politics as well, how is that fitting into the Christian rhetoric? Or is it still overwhelmingly Christian?

It's still crushingly Christian.

The USA is not a Christian nation.

The USA is a nation with a population that is largely made up of Christians.

Small difference that doesn't matter to the majority though.

Lux_Lucis wrote:As the topic title says I'm interested in how the discourse in the US justifies the large amounts of Christian rhetoric that seems to permeate US politics. Not a new thing for me to be wondering about, but I will admit the debate about gay marriage has made me think about it more recently, particularly since Romney stated: 'There is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action'.

This isn't supposed to be a thread about the topic of gay marriage but just the general conversation (if any) that occurs in the US about any intersection of Christianity and politics, such as the President's religion, 'In God We Trust' on notes etc and how that doesn't get shot down for being Church in the State's business.

Probably the first part of the issue is that the separation between church and state is a popular turn of phrase but not an explicit concept of the constitution. Laying aside for the moment the Bill of Rights. The constitution says, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This basically means that the religion of an office holder should neither qualify or disqualify them for office, it does not preclude them from practicing or espousing their religion while in office. I normally point at Sir Thomas More for an example of why this particular article exists. Now adding the establishment clause of the First Amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" precludes congress from establishing a religion but ALSO from prohibiting it's free exercise. Meaning that should a candidate or indeed a President choose to base his decision making process on Christian rhetoric he is permitted to do so. When or if the day comes that a Muslim president was elected I would expect the same freedom of religion to apply.
I would opine that the separation between church and state does not create a secular nation but a nation in which the prevailing majority is represented in government.

Joey wrote:Because the prevailing politics of a nation have little to do with its constitution in reality, which is as it should be.
The founders of the USA were by-and-large secular, but the modern populace (and by extention the people they elect) are overtly religious.

This is a popular but unfounded belief. The founding fathers of America were by and large religious and a minority of them were secular. Even the name of the building in which our government is housed has religious meaning. The building itself was used for chruch services every Sunday from its first cornerstone being laid until after the Civil War. Notably Jefferson attended services at the Capitol two days AFTER he wrote the commonly quoted letter outlining the separation of church and state. Madison, also a proponent of the separation of church and state attended services regularly at the Capitol as well. Both issued religious proclamations drafted and voted by congress, Jefferson actually refused to issue a few as well. The founders of this nation were indeed religious men, they simply thought that both government and religion were better off without the others dabbling.

Lux_Lucis wrote:There's a large Jewish lobby though and I assume an increasing Muslim presence in politics as well, how is that fitting into the Christian rhetoric? Or is it still overwhelmingly Christian?

We frequently discuss the US as a Christian nation in the Jewish Studies department. Those who say it is not tend to be...well Christians. Much but not all of the moral conscience of Christian rhetoric fits with Jewish morality and to a certain extent I'm sure Muslim as well, but the prevailing discourse will likely continue to be Christian by tradition, education, and majority beliefs.

AustonT wrote:

Lux_Lucis wrote:As the topic title says I'm interested in how the discourse in the US justifies the large amounts of Christian rhetoric that seems to permeate US politics. Not a new thing for me to be wondering about, but I will admit the debate about gay marriage has made me think about it more recently, particularly since Romney stated: 'There is no greater force for good in the nation than Christian conscience in action'.

This isn't supposed to be a thread about the topic of gay marriage but just the general conversation (if any) that occurs in the US about any intersection of Christianity and politics, such as the President's religion, 'In God We Trust' on notes etc and how that doesn't get shot down for being Church in the State's business.

Probably the first part of the issue is that the separation between church and state is a popular turn of phrase but not an explicit concept of the constitution. Laying aside for the moment the Bill of Rights. The constitution says, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." This basically means that the religion of an office holder should neither qualify or disqualify them for office, it does not preclude them from practicing or espousing their religion while in office. I normally point at Sir Thomas More for an example of why this particular article exists. Now adding the establishment clause of the First Amendment; "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" precludes congress from establishing a religion but ALSO from prohibiting it's free exercise. Meaning that should a candidate or indeed a President choose to base his decision making process on Christian rhetoric he is permitted to do so. When or if the day comes that a Muslim president was elected I would expect the same freedom of religion to apply.
I would opine that the separation between church and state does not create a secular nation but a nation in which the prevailing majority is represented in government.

Joey wrote:Because the prevailing politics of a nation have little to do with its constitution in reality, which is as it should be.
The founders of the USA were by-and-large secular, but the modern populace (and by extention the people they elect) are overtly religious.

This is a popular but unfounded belief. The founding fathers of America were by and large religious and a minority of them were secular. Even the name of the building in which our government is housed has religious meaning. The building itself was used for chruch services every Sunday from its first cornerstone being laid until after the Civil War. Notably Jefferson attended services at the Capitol two days AFTER he wrote the commonly quoted letter outlining the separation of church and state. Madison, also a proponent of the separation of church and state attended services regularly at the Capitol as well. Both issued religious proclamations drafted and voted by congress, Jefferson actually refused to issue a few as well. The founders of this nation were indeed religious men, they simply thought that both government and religion were better off without the others dabbling.

Lux_Lucis wrote:There's a large Jewish lobby though and I assume an increasing Muslim presence in politics as well, how is that fitting into the Christian rhetoric? Or is it still overwhelmingly Christian?

We frequently discuss the US as a Christian nation in the Jewish Studies department. Those who say it is not tend to be...well Christians. Much but not all of the moral conscience of Christian rhetoric fits with Jewish morality and to a certain extent I'm sure Muslim as well, but the prevailing discourse will likely continue to be Christian by tradition, education, and majority beliefs.

That answers it quite nicely for me I think, certainly it seems to be the most fulsome explanation I've read. Especially the first bit.

Obviously this is a personal opinion but I'd prefer it, if I lived there, if:
1) That was articulated better,
2) That wasn't the case and that religious rhetoric was removed from the public sphere (and yes, I am aware of the problems with doing that).

The founding fathers of the U.S. founded this nation as a Christian nation.

Most of them were deists, not Christians.

The US is a nation of secular laws, which has a lot of Christians in it. Saying it's a "Christian nation" makes it sound like the US is a theocracy. Sure, social conservatives would love for that to happen (as long as it was THEIR brand of Christianity that got put in power, I bet they'd be pretty pissed if, for example, the St. John's MCC or something similar was thrust in to power; they'd instantly legalize gay marriage), but it's not likely to happen any time soon.

Effectively, pandering to christian ideals gets them more votes. politicians would murder baby seals if it got them elected. Christian ideals are also used where possible to attack their enemy. Any since anyone can say something on TV and someone will believe it, they do it.

juraigamer wrote:Effectively, pandering to christian ideals gets them more votes. politicians would murder baby seals if it got them elected. Christian ideals are also used where possible to attack their enemy. Any since anyone can say something on TV and someone will believe it, they do it.

I get why, it was more how they get away with it, so to speak. AustonT seemed to explain it nicely, unless anyone can shoot that down

You can get away with anything if you're not caught. I can say I'm a hardcore Christian, or a Mormon, or whatever, and I could use excuses for why I don't do X, but I can always say I did X in the past and people will believe me.

Now if someone want's to say otherwise, there are two common results: The claim wasn't 100% right or I was lying. I can then say that their information is from a bias source or that it's wrong, and then simply call them out for attacking me as a (whatever religion here)

It tends to be lose lose for the 2nd player in the argument.

I'd love for an "actively" atheist person to be president just to see how that would play out