WHAT is a Christian nation?

I asked this question at the end of the "Should America be a Christian nation" thread, and it occurred to me that I think this warrants some further discussion, and possibly (hopefully) friendly debate.

Of course, there's plenty of discussion about what the US is, and why it isn't a Christian nation, but it begged the question, I think, of what a Christian nation would look like?

Which brand of Christianity would it take as its rule? I mean, you've got your Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, non-denominationals, Jehovah's Witnesses.... at last count there were several tens of thousands of different denominations, each with at least one point of doctrine that disagreed with all other Christian denominations, sects, and groups. So which one gets to be in charge? And why?

What laws would a Christian nation have that the US does not currently have? Elective abortion might be illegal. That is another debate, of course, for another thread, but it's the one law I can think of that a Christian nation might have, that the US does not currently have.

Maybe prohibition would come back. We saw how well that worked in the 30s, with gangs running most of the nation's largest cities, entire empires built on providing alcohol for people who didn't care if it was legal or not. That was a golden era of peace and prosperity, wasn't it?

But seriously: aside from abortion, what laws does the US currently NOT have, that a Christian nation would enact? Or, what laws are currently on the books in the US that would not be on the books of a Christian nation?

Some of you may be aware that many European countries are "Christian nations." Taxes support churches. It's the reason that there are so many huge, fancy churches in Europe that are virtually empty on Sunday mornings. If the state didn't support them, they wouldn't be able to support themselves. Is this a good thing?

What about people who aren't Christian? Would it be legal for an employer to discriminate against a non-Christian, refusing to hire someone just because he or she was not Christian? Is this a good thing?

Maybe you think the laws that are already on the books would be followed better in a "Christian nation?" If that were true, it would follow that the only people who break the laws are non-Christians. This is actually the opposite: there is a higher percentage of Christians in the penal system in the US than in the US population in general.

And I understand, many would say, "But they're not really Christian." Okay, what is "really Christian?" What would it take for a PERSON to be Christian, let alone an entire nation?

A Christian nation, to me, wouldn't need the government to tell them whether or not they are Christian. Governments come and go... God remains.

Maybe it's the American in me, but I think we are defined more by our society than the laws on our books. Our society is depraved and we celebrate all that is evil. A Christian nation wouldn't. We can pat ourselves on the back all we want for heroin and child prostitution being illegal, but those things are still happening in this country. Our laws are good for one thing and one thing only: filling our government-run prisons. 10% of our "free" population lives behind bars. And those are just the people that were caught and couldn't afford a good lawyer.

Anyway....

A Christian nation wouldn't allow the Kardashians and Bad Girls Club and trash like that on television. A Christian nation wouldn't sell push up bras and high heels for toddlers. A Christian nation wouldn't allow 24 hour "news" networks dedicated to political and personal slander and sensationalism. A Christian nation wouldn't produce 90% of the world's gossip magazines and websites (congrats on your 10%, England). We wouldn't allow liars, adulterers, thieves and cheats to represent us in Government. Our justice system would be just. We wouldn't be worried about offending people with the statement 'One nation, under God.' We would value a real education system instead of tax-paid babysitting and minimum wage job training. We would give at least two craps about children after they've left the fetus stage and become actual people.

I'm not saying we have to outlaw all of this stuff. I'm saying we shouldn't have to. If you understand business and economics at all, you would know that nobody would sell high heels for toddlers unless there was a market for it. Those television programs wouldn't exist unless there was a market for it. SOCIETY powers these things, not the government.

A Christian nation would be a society that values the fruits of the spirit-

Love
Joy
Peace
Patience
Kindness
Goodness
Faithfulness
Gentleness
SELF-CONTROL

As our society becomes more "victimized" and "entitled" that last one is important to remember. We used to value hard work in this country and pulling yourself up by your boot straps. It used to be known as "Protestant work ethic," but is really synonymous with what America used to be. Without that work ethic, we wouldn't be here. Really, this isn't so much about being a CHRISTIAN nation, but a nation that has some actual values and conviction. We would stop bending over backwards to appease the faithless and morally corrupt. We wouldn't blame everyone else for our problems or our failures to succeed and support our families.

I don't think theocracy could ever be the answer. I think we should be a free nation and that includes freedom of/from religion. However, for a nation that claims to be comprised of MOSTLY Christians, our society should be reflecting that. It isn't.

The answer is not in how you vote or where you picket. It's in how you live your life and what YOU are willing to tolerate and support. It's how YOU walk the walk, not talk the talk. We cannot hide from God...not even behind the constitution. We should take that seriously.

I think a christian nation should have the conviction of a saint.
The feet of a Jehova witness.
The patience and understanding of a Mormon.
The hands of the Apostle to the gentiles.
The heart of Jesus Himself.
The mind of a child.
The faith to move mountains.
The words of pure truth in whom is no guile.
The clarity of a Professor.
The courage of a rebel.
The sound of a stringed instrument.
And of course the vision of a Reformation.

First of all rainacorn, thank you for your thoughtful and well-stated response.

I would like to respond to a few points.

I would say, "Certain aspects of our society are depraved." I don't think the whole of society is.

I think I agree with you there. Which is one reason why the US should / could never be a Christian nation. Sadly, freedom of press means that porn and near-porn can be published. And since it sells, it will be published. Whatever you can do for a buck.

I don't know, I think they are a decent representation of the public.... A pastor of mine used to say, "Yes, the church is filled with self-righteous obnoxious gossipers, and you would fit right in."

I think if you're putting the onus on the people to be Christian (rather than the government), then the representatives would be, well, representatives of the people. If the people weren't liars, adulterers, thieves and cheats, then neither would representatives be.

Amen! I am curious, however, what you think a "real education system" looks like? Do you think the government should still offer free education in a Christian nation, or should it be left to the churches? And how would that educational system be different from the US? (I could offer my opinions on the matter if you're curious.)

Double Amen!!!!!

All in all, very well said.

The 'depraved mind' that God turns us over to in His wrath is a mind that cannot tell right from wrong anymore and a person that will defend someone's "right to sin."

We're there, sistah.

The depraved part again. Who is buying it?? We, the people, are buying it. We've lost the ability to discern and we have no self-control.

There's the rub, yeah? We don't expect our LEADERS to be the best of us. In fact, we brush off the fact that they often represent the worst of us. It should be appalling, rather than "par for the course".

This isn't really a religious view, I suppose, although there is Biblical support for valuable education. Free public education existed in churches before it was offered by the government. At the start of the industrial age, everyone was put to work. Illiteracy was rampant and people felt hopeless. The churches stepped in to offer education- teaching people how to read and write and basic math skills. It didn't get them out of working mindless, grueling factory jobs, but it made it possible for some of those people to get out and carve out their own path. Those people who were talented and motivated to do so.

Our public education system in this country started in a similar way. We didn't want kids working in factories anymore because they were taking valuable factory jobs away from adults (you don't have to pay a kid as much and it isn't really 'skilled labor' that they're doing). So what do we do? We start a school system, promising that if companies stop hiring children and let them go to school, the result will be better-educated adults that can do more complicated jobs and be of more value to the workforce.

Sadly, that's still what our education system is. It's teaching the absolute basics in an effort to produce a slightly more educated factory work force of adults. Only problem is there are hardly any factory jobs in the US and most people desire a different kind of work anyway. Free education (up through high school) doesn't really prepare people for anything more advanced than minimum wage employment. We aren't even producing ADULTS, let alone adults that are ready to be valuable contributors to society.

I'm not against the idea of free public education, but if it's really just job training (and it is) then we need to consider what jobs are actually available and change our system accordingly. We cannot compete anymore. Nobody wants to do manual labor and the average person isn't smart enough for more than that. We tell ourselves we are smarter because we got good grades, but look at where the bar is! "I got a 4.0 from a daycare that focuses on self-esteem, tolerance and relativism! Yaaaay! I'm ready for my CEO job now, kthanx."

Now those of us that own companies are accused of ageism because MOST people under the age of 30 are basically worthless and we don't want to hire them. They have no work ethic and they know next to nothing, even if they went to college. The exceptions seem to be those who went to private religious schools or were home schooled (usually religiously).

I'm not sure if that means the churches do a better job of educating people than the current public school system, but those who come out of 'religious education' are more likely to work hard and are more willing to learn new things. They don't expect anything to be handed to them, unlike their secular public school counterparts who can barely use the bathroom at work without you walking them over to it and giving them detailed instructions and constant positive reinforcement.

I agree with a lot of what you say. Perhaps a thread on education is in order?

Well, I have met quite a few people under the age of 30 who were educated in public schools who do work hard and are willing to learn. I'll agree that they're the exception more than the rule, but then, I know an awful lot of 30+-year-olds who are the same way. I don't think the % of lazy butts are higher under 30 than over it.

I'm also not convinced it's related to where they went to school.

In my experience (and as an educator, I'd have to say I have quite a lot of experience), it has less to do with what kind of school you go to, and more to do with whether your parents bothered to be involved in your upbringing.

The kids who go to private schools and/or are home-schooled, obviously their parents take a more active role in their education. The kids who go to public school, well, they might have parents who care and they might not.

I have a lot of suggestions for how schools could improve, but I agree that it isn't directly related to my faith (as you pointed out -- arguments can be made for free public education, but it isn't as cut-and-dry as some issues are).

Thank you for the discussion!

I would agree with that. After I made the post, I got to thinking about some things. Afterall, I am 30 years old and I went to public schools. I also didn't finish college. Why am I willing to work, willing to learn and don't expect handouts when the same really can't be said for the people I went to school with?

The difference would be my parents, I'd say. The purpose of education was never to get good grades, it was to carry on interesting and intelligent conversations at home. Good grades were expected, as was good behavior and perfect attendance, so it wasn't really a goal or anything. But, I studied a lot and read a lot as a kid so I could participate in conversations without people laughing at me. My parents are good people, but there IS such a thing as a stupid question. You had to go above and beyond what school expected of you just to keep up in my house.

I just read an article today about the insane turnover rate for teachers because they can't stand parents. The better the teacher, the more difficult it is. My husband was a high school English teacher, but he had to walk away from it because he was finding it rather hard to control himself around the parents. A few students earned a failing grade on a paper about Romeo and Juliet (because they hadn't read it and don't pay attention in class). Their parents complained but he wasn't about to change the grade. It was what it was. So the parents showed up at the school practically with torches and pitchforks complaining that he's teaching their children about sex and suicide, demanding he be fired.

He wasn't fired, but that was the last semester he taught school. He just couldn't take these horrible, delusional parents anymore.

This is where we transition to the conversation about traditional family values being good for society. That will wander into the discussion about traditional marriage as a part of traditional family values and then quickly degrade into an argument over whether or not legalizing homosexual marriage will put us on the path of traditional family values or push us further away from it. Blah blah blah then back to a theocracy/evil dictatorship. Sorry for the spoilers lol

LOL.

If you could prove to me that homosexual parents were particularly less supportive of their kids being hard-working, or that kids of gay parents were lazier than kids of straight parents, I would say that this would be a case for not letting gays have kids.

Once again, in my vast experience, gay parents are on the whole better at the kinds of things you're talking about. For one thing, gay parents tend to be wealthier (statistically), which is one of the tests of strong parental support for school kids. For another, a child of gay parents is going to learn REAL fast that life is tough, that people won't just hand things to you for nothing, that you have to work hard for anything worth having.

Now, you can argue that homosexuality is a sin. But without evidence, I don't think you can argue that they make bad parents where it counts.

Hey, I'm not saying they can't have kids... biology is saying that. lol

I get what you mean, though. Adoptive parents (even straight ones, if you can believe it) can be wonderful and often take great interest in the raising of the children they didn't naturally have. Makes sense. Children are a gift soooo many people take for granted because makin' babies is easy dawg. But for those who cannot have children biologically, just being able to care for them is such a blessing.

I wish more people would choose adoption.

Anyway, on your gay parent thing, I just read this article about a lesbian couple that conceived through a sperm donation. They thought it would be cute to track down any half brothers and sisters their child may have based on this one donor. 150 kids later, they're starting to think maybe the sperm donor industry should be regulated in some way lol