All Comments (32)

When will the Catholic Church be forced to give up its prejudice stance toward its black communicants. When will they be forced to hire black people in the white dominated Archdiocese Office. There are black Catholics you know! Educated and grace filled. I would like to see egual rights in the Church. I want to see a cross of nations present when I am at church or working in the church. When will the Church put an end to the separation?

Dear Beloved Prayer partner,

Loving greetings to you in the name of our lord Jesus Christ.
Please kindly pray for me and remember me in your prayers. Sum finesse problems. I am waiting for a Finesse miracle to happen in my life for my future. Can I expect Miracle and blessing prayers? I live only in our sacred Lord's and your dear blessings and prayers

Yours in the sacred Lord,
M.RATHNAKUMAR
INDIA

Google is the best search engine Google

This guy is out of his mind.

"This country should not be a Christian nation".

What kind of follower of Christ says such a thing?

This guy is a phony.

I for one disagree with Jim Wallis that Christian influence in our government is dangerous. Since most of our founding fathers were either deists or Christian, it doesn't make sense to adopt an absolute separation of church and state. The modern interpretation of the principle of separation of church and state is a politically correct one that has evolved from modern prejudices against "fundamentalist" Christianity, whatever that is. Basically, Jim Wallis and others in his camp are anachronistically reading their modern concerns back into American history and it "ain't" there.

The last time I checked this country guarantees us the freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion. This means that Christians have as much right to protest, to speak out against immorality in government and society, and to participate in the governing of this nation. Any idiot who studies the history of western civilization will immediately see that both the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant Reformation were major factors in government and civilization in the past. Why should Christians today shutup and sit down? Give me a break, Mr. Wallis!

What Wallis really means is that he doesn't want Christians on the conservative side of things to speak up. I might agree with Wallis on issues of poverty and the like. However, his endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle proves that he is no "Evangelical" Christian as he pretends to be. Wallis is better classified as a liberal Christian. Wallis also seems to think that Evangelicals who disagree with him are "fundamentalists." I guess anyone right of the homosexual issue and the abortion issue is a "fundamentalist" who should shut up and separate themselves from the political process while Wallis and his leftwing cronies undermine the morality of the nation under our very noses. Sorry, Jimmy boy. It "ain't" gonna happen!

Sincerely,

Charlie Ray

"And does anybody really want to say that America has behaved in the world as a “Christian nation?” I hope not for the sake of Christian integrity?"

Mr.Wallis,
I respect Christians like you very much.
You actually walk the talk.

!

WarpTen

In politics and sociology, divide and rule (also known as divide and conquer) is a combination political, military and economic strategy of gaining and maintaining power by breaking up larger concentrations of power into chunks that individually have less power than the one implementing the strategy. In reality, it often refers to a strategy where small power groups are prevented from linking up and becoming more powerful, since it is difficult to break up existing power structures.

Effective use of this technique allows those with little real power to control those who collectively have a lot of power (or would have much more power, were they able to unite).

Typical elements of this technique involve

·creating or at least not preventing petty feuds among smaller players. Such feuds drain resources and prevent alliances that could challenge the overlords.

·aiding and promoting those who are willing to cooperate with the overlords, often by giving them the lands and wealth of rebellious local rulers.

·fostering distrust and enmity between local rulers.

·encouraging expenditures on personal frivolities (e.g., showy palaces) that leave little money for political manoeuvering and warfare.

This technique requires a lot of skill and political finesse, as well as a good understanding of political science, history and psychology.

"Divide and rule" works only if the subjects of this technique are willing to go along with it (e.g., because it is to their personal advantage), or behave foolishly. It works best in societies where competition between noble families, clans or social classes was already fierce before the overlord took over.

The strategy was used to great effect by administrators of vast empires, including the Roman and British, who would play one tribe against another to maintain control of their territories with a minimal number of imperial forces. The concept of 'Divide and Rule' gained prominence when India was a part of the British Empire, but was also the strategy used by the Romans to take Britain, and for the Anglo-Normans to take Ireland. The British used the strategy to gain control of the large territory of India by keeping its people divided along lines of religion, language, caste etc. The British took control of petty princely states in India piecemeal.

Also mentioned as a strategy for market action in economics, it can be applied to get the most out of the players in a competitive market.

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

Mark Eaton wrote:
Evangelicals struggle with Dr. Wallis' ease at which he agrees with the "Separation of Church and State". This illegal construct permits the persecution of Christians by secular people. It is already happening. So many cases to list and not enough room to list them. Dr. Wallis sees it as good for the church yet he does back up his statement with any evidence. It is not in any way good for the church. It places a boundary around these areas and says "no religion here". Can any believer want to compartmentalize his life in such a way? None that I know. We want the institutions left alone. We are tired of the removal of God from everything.

Christians persecuted by seculars? Removal of God from everything? Not by a long shot AND we should be so lucky. The ONLY thing being removed is Christian privilege. You actually have to share with other religions and it's killing you. It's like a spoiled child having a tantrum because he can't have ALL the candy.

The huge irony in all this discussion on the separation of church and state is that atheists, agnostics, humanists, freethinkers and liberal believers support it while fundamentalists of all religions oppose it. If the fundies got their way and a state/national religion was imposed, that would be the death of religion in America.

Doubt me? Look to any country that went through a sustained period where the church & state merged. They are now the least religious countries (England & Japan especially). The good 'ol USA has not experienced such a merger thanks to church/state separation, thus it is the most religiously diverse country in existence.

If it wouldn't give Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, James Dobson and the rest of their ilk a big (if temporary) victory, I'd assume let this country "find religion" for a generation so it can get it out of its system. It's kinda like getting a flu shot - you're flooding your system with the flu virus now so you can better fight it later. You may get sick for a while, but you build up a resistance and avoid the worst conditions. Too bad there's no religion vaccine.

I agree wholeheartedly with Jim Wallis- America is not, and should not be seen or described as "a Christian nation." America was founded on the belief that each person should have the right to express and practice their deeply personal beliefs (or unbelief) as their conscience leads.

If there is a "war" on anything spiritual in our nation, it is a war on tolerance, interfaith dialogue and honest conversation. We can each make a positive difference in our communities and the world by cultivating honest, respectful dialogue with people who are different from us, and seek to learn about others' values and customs rather than seeking to impose our own values on others without any conversation.

I think all too often, instead of really taking the time and effort to get to know, and "love our neighbors," we are too busy shouting at them and putting up fences- both literal and symbolic.

We need to work to break down borders, not spend our time building bigger fences.

The spirit of Wallis' comment is correct, and this forum is evidence of that. There are nations in this world where the above posters would be imprisoned or worse for expressing dissent with the state's religious doctrine. Fortunately ours is not one of those nations. Yes, our nationalism is sometimes misguided and our foreign policy is often just plain wrong, but I give thanks for our diversity of perspectives and the freedom that we have to express them.

I think are far too many different versions of "Christianity" based on far too many different bibles, which are far too externally and internally contradictory to constitute "Christian" as a meaningful term. Once you get beyond belief in Jesus as some kind of divinity, there is NOTHING that ALL "Christians" agree on. So the concept that America is a "Christian" nation is meaningless.

DCL:

Jesus Himself said, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). Paul echoes this when he writes that a Christian's citizenship is in heaven (Phil. 3:20).

Christianity was never meant to be joined to an earthly government. Indeed, the worst thing that ever happened to the Church was when Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire. Thus began a history of corruption, nominalism, decadence, and genocide...all done in the name of Christ.

We as Christians need to stop pursuing unholy marriages with worldy governments and get back to what James calls "pure and undefiled religion...to visit orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world" (1:27).

Then, and only then, is when I believe we will experience the "mustard seed" effect. Small, unassuming...but having a transformational impact upon society.

"Those arriving on the Mayflower were escaping religious persecution by the Church of England (a state religion)."

Well, The Pilgrims escaped first to the Netherlands, which had freedom of religion. But they came to America because they didn't want to assimilate into Dutch society. The Pilgrim colony in America was a quasi-theocracy, where people who spoke out against ministers were punished by exile or imprisonment. So they didn't have freedom of religion or freedom of speech even for their own members.

The Puritans were hardly better. In Maryland, they seized control of the colony by force, and during their short rule they denied freedom of worship to Baptists, Quakers, Catholics and Episcopalians.

"What we have grown to call the separation of church and state is good for both the government and religion—that citizenship should have no religious tests and faith can’t or shouldn’t be implemented by the state."

Very true. I would add that our culture and our society should not question some citizens' patriotism based on their religious beliefs. Not so long ago, Catholics and Jews in America were regarded as less loyal than Protestants.

"On the other hand, does the cultural visibility of religious language and visibility in holiday seasons threaten the religious liberty of diverse believers (especially if all the pluralistic faith traditions of the nation can enjoy public display at the appropriate times in their religious calendars)? I don’t think so."

I agree. I acknowledge that religious minorities such as Jews may often feel overwhelmed at this time of year. All the more reason to them to enjoy their own public displays.

What does it mean to be a Christian? If a stranger were to meet a Christian (you or me or another) on the road to anywhere, how would they know they had encountered a Christian? When I was a child we used to sing in church a song titled “They will know we are Christian by our Love”. I am convinced that if we are to be known as Christians at all, it will be because of our love of neighbor, our compassion for the poor and our commitment to justice. Our rhetorical skills will not account for much in the end. Arguing about whether we are a Christian nation seems to me to be of little import.

I believe that we are called to be Loving now in this moment, where we are and with whom we are. How will others know we are Christian? By our Love, for that is all we have to give. Any other standard falls far short of the mark. Paul says it best in 1 Corinthians 13:

“If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, I gain nothing.”

For me, the question always gets back to “what does it mean for me to be loving in this moment, in this particular situation, with these “the least among us””: Which is to say, you and me on this forum, our wives and husbands, our children and extended families, our neighbors, the poor, the widow and her children, the imprisoned and even our enemies. How will these least among us know we are Christian except by our love? I believe my call as a Christian is to Love and to be Loving. If I am true to this calling, others will encounter Christ working through me. No argument will convince anyone that I am Christian or that I come from a “Christian nation”. When I forget this I fall into the trap of thinking there is something to win, such as this argument or some other. But in truth my behavior, my being loving,my being Christ-like, will say all that needs saying and my words will ultimately count for very little.

Sadly, the US is a "Christian" nation by the neocon redefinition of Christianity. This view saves the heathens and, as one poster put it, offers liberty to millions in Iraq. Ask the people in Iraq if they have benefited from US "Christian" generosity. Christianity in America has come to be known throughout the world as arrogant, intolerant and hateful. I don't think Jesus would want to identify himself with these ideals yet many ignorant, shallow Americans wrap themselves in the flag with the cross of Jesus going on before. In their righteous might they have made a mockery of everything Jesus stood for.

I'm going to be brief. I'm a student majoring in Irish Literature at Creighton University, but I've been studying for the term at the University of Limerick in Co. Limerick, Ireland. There is only one result of the hyper-nationalism that characterizes any thought of America's being a Christian nation, let alone the sole Christian nation. It is more bloodshed. This sort of hyper-nationalism, especially when coupled with seeming divine sanction, leads to the death of thousands. Look at Ireland. The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland confirms in its preamble the source of all wisdom and the ultimate end of man is the Holy Spirit. This language characterizes the Moral Monopoly the Roman Catholic Church exercised over Irish society throughout much of the twentieth century. As a result, you have a government that legislates Catholic Social Teaching. Now, by definition that would be a Christain Nation; however, in all reality, a country that binds women inextricably to the domestic sphere, a country that did not allow the dissolution of marriage well until the 1990s, a country that would ban "Ulysses" by Joyce, "Mary Lavelle" by Kate O'Brien, "The Wild Country Girls" by Edna O'Brien all because of their threat to public morality is not a Christian Nation.

Mr Wolfe:

Are you a follower of Christ? It you are, does that make you a Christian or a Follower or a Believer? Many names apply. Early "Christians" called their beliefs "the way". You give me the Sermon on the Mount as proof that we cannot live up to Jesus' teaching. Amen. None of us can. No man alive can, without the Holy Spirit living within him. Does that mean that we are not followers of Christ? It means that we are people, saved by grace, given mercy by God, justfied by Jesus' blood, and living out a sanctified life. Do we miss it sometimes? Yes. We cannot be perfect, but we strive to be.

The Hebrew people never prayed to "Yahweh". The name was never pronounced by them. Ask a rabbi. All believers in the One True and Living God are not Jews. We may be "grafted into the old olive tree" but at best, we are step-children of Abraham. We are his spritual childeren. I do not participate in the feasts, festivals, and holidays. These celebrations are uniquely Jewish in nature and are now as much cultural as religious.

Evangelicals struggle with Dr. Wallis' ease at which he agrees with the "Separation of Church and State". This illegal construct permits the persecution of Christians by secular people. It is already happening. So many cases to list and not enough room to list them. Dr. Wallis sees it as good for the church yet he does back up his statement with any evidence. It is not in any way good for the church. It places a boundary around these areas and says "no religion here". Can any believer want to compartmentalize his life in such a way? None that I know. We want the institutions left alone. We are tired of the removal of God from everything.

I agree with Mr. Thompson. Dr. Wallis is wrong. Dr Wallis is trying to make his own religion. Perhaps he shall. We can call them the "Wallis' Wall-eyes".

Actually, perhaps one should first ask what standard of ethics is held by Christian religious organizations in general. Some of my Quaker friends are of the opinion that Christianity has been going downhill since Constantine started the institution of "Christ's Mass" in a deliberate attempt to interfere with the celebration of the Saturnalia.

As I recall, it was about 330AD when "Christ's Mass" was chosen to be the official date of the birth of Jesus, which was about as realistic as the premise for the Iraq war.

I wonder if the commercialism of "Christ's Mass" isn't a sign of God's displeasure with the whole fabricated event. At least the celebration of Kwaanza is admitted to be made up just for the benefit of folks who want to have something to celebrate other than some false miracle.

What I'm getting at is that the PRACTICE of Christianity has become unethical and immoral and corrupt, so perhaps in that sense we are a Christian nation. Unfortunately.

"Josh, Where does the Bible advocate slavery? After all the Bible does tell us to treat the slave as our brother."

Well, among others:

Exodus 21:20-21 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property."

Leviticus 25:44-46 "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

Ephesians 6:5-6 "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart."

Titus 2:9-10 "Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them, and not to steal from them, but to show that they can be fully trusted, so that in every way they will make the teaching about God our Savior attractive."

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46)

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, 'I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.' If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. (Exodus 21:2-6)

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11)
-------------------------------------------------
If our country is to be guided purely by Christian ideals, than we fought against the will of the god of Abraham during the civil war, and won.

Furthermore, when considering scripture such as this:

"it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24, Mark 10:25, and Luke 18:25)

I'd say our consumer driven society couldn't be farther from christian ideals. Whatever those are anyway, this new video game about the rapture and raising armies to massacre non-believers seems about as far from the values american Christians try to promote. From a historical sense though, I'd say it is very Christian.

Arthur R. Thompson:

Your theory about America acting as a "Christian Nation through its foreign policy" is laughable. Christ preaches turn the other cheek and forgiveness above all else. If we were christ-like during WWII, we wouldn't have attacked Japan for retailiation for Pearl Harbor; Afghanistan for training the 9/11 hijackers; Iraq for plotting to kill us. We certainly weren't christ-like when we oh, sold dual use biological agents and aluminum tubes to Iraq in the 80s, sold weaponry to Iran to fund the Contras in Nicaragua to prevent the spread of the left, funneled money to Afghanistan's Mujahideen and consequently Osama when they were fighting the soviets, by turning a blind eye to the people of Romania when they needed our help the most to develop democracy. Oh and how about being the first and foremost manufacturer and wholesaler of weaponry in the entire world.

How is this Christ-like?

Josh, Where does the Bible advocate slavery? After all the Bible does tell us to treat the slave as our brother.

"In answer I say, YES, America not only behaves as a “Christian Nation”, it is the ONLY country that follows Christian principles in its foreign policy. Maybe not always and in all cases but WW I, WW II, in Afghanistan and Iraq America has delivered Liberty to untold millions. Now that is compassion and justice. "

If you consider 6 hours of electricity per day, 100 dead per day from sectarian violence, and no hope of a job or future, yeah we gave them our American brand of Christian Salvation! But then, the bible advocates slavery too...

Thompson's opener that "The first Americans, 100% of them, were Christians" is inane because the "first" of anything or anyone starts with the one(s) who was there before another! By that count, none of the "first Americans" were Christians! They were native Americans, the very first to inhabit this land. They were not Christians!!

Mr. Thompson's final lines are equally silly. "YES, America not only behaves as a “Christian Nation”, it is the ONLY country that follows Christian principles in its foreign policy."

As a committed Christian and a US Army veteran, I could not disagree with you more. I should also add that I am ashamed of the way my country has and continues to make a mockery of Christian tenets, especially in its foreign policy initiatives.

US foreign policies which promoted the elimination of political leaders (whom political conservatives in this country did not like) are not Christian. Neither the Chileans or Iranians will or should ever forget our nation's shameless behaviors in the case of Mossadegh and Allende. What Jesus preached was unconditional forgiveness. He did that even in the case of his assassins.

Mr. Thompson, if you want to brush up on our country's foreign policies which led to the sponsorship of assassination attempts against foreign leaders, I suggest that you read Blum's post at the following location. For some of the names that you see there, there may be second opinions, but most of them are right on the mark, i.e., in my opinion.
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/Assassinations_WBlum.html

I grant you that in WWII, we did fight, albeit rather late to get rid of fascist dictators and prevent a holocaust from recurring.But, witness what this Christian nation is currently doing with another holocaust that is going on in Darfur. We are not lifting even our little finger. What has happened to our Christian charity?

It is laughable when Mr. Thompson waxes eloquent about delivering liberty to "untold millions in Afghanistan and Iraq". What sort of liberty is it when women, children and ordinary people cannot walk the streets of the cities and towns of Iraq and Afghanistan? Nearly two million Iraqis are refugee-emigres after the stupid war we initiated there. We cannot extricate ourselves now for fear of promoting more mayhem and violence there.

What sort of freedom is it when even previously emancipated Iraqi and Afghan women are now forced to wear Burkhas and are not allowed to work as doctors, nurses and professionals either in Afghanistan or Iraq, as before? What sort of religious freedom is there now in Iraq for Christians?

The Orthodox Christians lived freely in Iraq. They lived in harmony with their Muslim neighbors for 1400 years and some of them were even prominent professionals and political leaders during the Saddam regime. Now, most of them are emigrating, because of our actions during and after the invasion which have fueled Islamic fundamentalism and also led to murders of orthodox Christians and desecration of their churches. By any stretch of imagination, that cannot be called an act of conferring "freedom" for the Iraqis.

APOLOGIES. I see that one of my posts was repeated. That happened because I thought I had forgotten to post it. My apologies to everyone for taking up so much space twice. - Burton

Mr. Thompson:
    Because of reasons of length, it has been necessary for me to separate my message concerning historical aspects from a response to your idea that Americans are pedominantly "Christians" and are behaving themselves as such. Sorry to have to be so blunt about it, but that is absolute hogwash.
    If you would be a "Christian," you must adhere to the precepts attributed to "Jesus" and the "apostles" in the New Testament. That is the "Christian" bible, containing the "word of God." Either you have people adhering to those precepts and thus a "Christianity," or you have people not adhering to them, in which case you have only "churchianity."
    Here are some of the precepts one must follow in order to be a "Christian."
Do not kill. (Matthew 5:21). Do not be angry with your brother. (Matthew 5:22). Do not insult your brother (Matthew 5:22). Make friends with your accuser (Matthew 5:25). Do not commit adultery, and merely looking "at a woman lustfully" is commission of adultery (Matthew 5:27-28), as is marrying a divorced woman (Matthew 5:29-30). If one of your body parts causes you to sin, "cut it off and throw it away" (Matthew 5:29-30). Divorce is unacceptable on any grounds except unchastity (Matthew 5:32 and Mark 10:7-12). Not only is false swearing forbidden, but also swearing of any kind is unacceptable and should be avoided by saying simply "yes" or "no" (Matthew 5:33-37). "Do not resist one who is evil." Rather, "if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" and give him not only what he demands of you, but also twice what he demands (Matthew 5:39-41). "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44). Do not practice piety in public (Matthew 6:1). Do not pray in the church or on the street, but only privately in your own room (Matthew 6:5-6). Do not pray with "empty phrases" used by gentiles; rather, pray as taught by the ancient Hebrews (Matthew 6:7-13). Do not accumulate wealth (Matthew 6:19). Do not be concerned about what food you eat or what clothes you wear (Matthew 6:25). To be perfect, "sell what you possess and give it to the poor" (Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 18:27). Do not call your father father; call only God father (Matthew 23:9).
    Need I go on, Mr. Thompson? If so, I will post more - in which case it gets even tougher, especially when you get to the Peter and Paul sections of the scriptures.
    So, what American is a "Christian," Mr. Thompson? You? The corporate executives going to church on Sunday and throwing people out of work on Monday and cheating the public so as to obtain bigger profits for themselves and their stockholders? The priests praying to "God" and "Jesus" with a football team to allow that team to beat the crap out of the other team on the field? That self-professed "Christian" George Bush and his "Christian" colleagues, as they go about their business of mass slaughter and maiming in order to "export democracy" from their nation which is an oligarchy dominated by an aristocracy of wealth? What American is a "Christian," Mr. Thompson? See if you can come up with even one name. - BHW

A follow up to Mr. Wolfe's comment, and a response to Mr. Thompson.

Our founders wanted to prevent government from requiring a religious qualification test for citizenship or from making laws impeding religion because Europe, and England in particular, as part of the reformation, had just been through a couple centuries of persecution of various Christian sects by the members of other Christian sects. Many of our states started as colonies for those escaping Christian on Christian persecution - from the Pilgrims to Maryland and Rhode Island. The founders of our country wisely realized that religion is more of a divider than a unifier when one is building a nation.

A discussion of whether the US is a Christian nation is resultingly a misnomer - and a tool to divide our citizens from the true hope-giving nature of our nation. Our country's ethos is one that embodies the humane ideals of the Enlightenment, taking from multiple philosophical strains, and tries to get past the internecine battles within the family of Christian sects. Thus to claim, as Mr. Thompson does, that the US is the only nation to act as a Christian nation does violence to the intent and hope of our framers, and takes us back into that internecine war.

Finally, I take serious issue with Mr. Thompson's claim that the US acts as a Christian nation. In the last five years, I don't see evidence of that. Preventive war is not a Christian act; it is the act of a barbarian. Failure to intervene in cases of genocide is not a Christian act; it is an act of cowardice. Surprisingly, these are the acts of an allegedly "born-again" president.

Mr. Thompson:
    Because of reasons of length, it has been necessary for me to separate my message concerning historical aspects from a response to your idea that Americans are pedominantly "Christians" and are behaving themselves as such. Sorry to have to be so blunt about it, but that is absolute hogwash.
    If you would be a "Christian," you must adhere to the precepts attributed to "Jesus" and the "apostles" in the New Testament. That is the "Christian" bible, containing the "word of God." Either you have people adhering to those precepts and thus a "Christianity," or you have people not adhering to them, in which case you have only "churchianity."
    Here are some of the precepts one must follow in order to be a "Christian."
Do not kill. (Matthew 5:21). Do not be angry with your brother. (Matthew 5:22). Do not insult your brother (Matthew 5:22). Make friends with your accuser (Matthew 5:25). Do not commit adultery, and merely looking "at a woman lustfully" is commission of adultery (Matthew 5:27-28), as is marrying a divorced woman (Matthew 5:29-30). If one of your body parts causes you to sin, "cut it off and throw it away" (Matthew 5:29-30). Divorce is unacceptable on any grounds except unchastity (Matthew 5:32 and Mark 10:7-12). Not only is false swearing forbidden, but also swearing of any kind is unacceptable and should be avoided by saying simply "yes" or "no" (Matthew 5:33-37). "Do not resist one who is evil." Rather, "if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" and give him not only what he demands of you, but also twice what he demands (Matthew 5:39-41). "Love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44). Do not practice piety in public (Matthew 6:1). Do not pray in the church or on the street, but only privately in your own room (Matthew 6:5-6). Do not pray with "empty phrases" used by gentiles; rather, pray as taught by the ancient Hebrews (Matthew 6:7-13). Do not accumulate wealth (Matthew 6:19). Do not be concerned about what food you eat or what clothes you wear (Matthew 6:25). To be perfect, "sell what you possess and give it to the poor" (Matthew 19:21, Mark 10:21, Luke 18:27). Do not call your father father; call only God father (Matthew 23:9).
    Need I go on, Mr. Thompson? If so, I will post more - in which case it gets even tougher, especially when you get to the Peter and Paul sections of the scriptures.
    So, what American is a "Christian," Mr. Thompson? You? The corporate executives going to church on Sunday and throwing people out of work on Monday and cheating the public so as to obtain bigger profits for themselves and their stockholders? The priests praying to "God" and "Jesus" with a football team to allow that team to beat the crap out of the other team on the field? That self-professed "Christian" George Bush and his "Christian" colleagues, as they go about their business of mass slaughter and maiming in order to "export democracy" from their nation which is an oligarchy dominated by an aristocracy of wealth? What American is a "Christian," Mr. Thompson? See if you can come up with even one name. - BHW

The commenter above writes:

YES, America not only behaves as a “Christian Nation”, it is the ONLY country that follows Christian principles in its foreign policy. [In] Afghanistan and Iraq America has delivered Liberty to untold millions.

This kind of thinking will sink our country faster than anything else. It is ignorant and dangerous.

Re Thompson's post:
    This posting by Arthur Thompson is typical of the ignorance which prevails. The original so-called "Christian" sect, which was not called "Christian," consisted entirely of Hebrews. There was no such person as a Jew at the time. Though the early Catholics destroyed and rewrote the scriptures and most other literature so as to make it appear that the religion they inherited from the Hebrews was a gentile religion, that effort of theirs was bound to be revealed eventually as one of the extraordinary number of frauds which they promulgated upon humanity.
    Right from the start of the rebellion of the Hebrews against the kings and priests, probably beginning around 1400 B.C. (B.C.E.), there was intermarriage between people known variously as Habiru, Hebrews, and Israelites
with peoples of other names such as Moabites who were considered "gentiles." Nobody alive today - at least no caucasian and no person who is a descendant of the people who spoke semitic languages 1400 B.C. to early A.D. - can know whether or not he or she is a descendant of the ancient Hebrews.
    What IS known, from the Dead Sea scriptures (of which Mr. Thompson appears to be ignorant) is that every version of so-called "Christianity" is a Hebrew religion. As Professor George E. Mendenhall of University of Michigan (he is a Lutheran) puts it in his book "Our Misunderstood Bible," when "Christians" pray to "God" for deliverance or for any other purpose, they are praying to "Yahweh," the ancient Hebrews' version of the male deity who creates everything: a story found in every religion dating back many thousands of years before there were "Jews" or "Christians." And thus, as Professor Mendenhall puts it, "we are all Hebrews."
    All of this is the first of two errors that Mr. Thompson makes when he asserts that the "first Americans" were "100 percent Christians." In fact the first Americans were Indians. The majority of the people who followed them appear to have been the adherents to a "religion" - whether Catholic or Protestant or Anglican or whatever - that right from the start has never been anything more than the creation of a revolutionary branch of Judaism by a sect opposed to the rich Jews of the Roman Empire and the priests of the Jerusalem Temple. To that extent they were all one type of Hebrew or Jew (the terms are now intertwinable). So, to try to separate the so-called "Christians" who colonized America from Hebrews or Jews is historically impossible. - BHW

In his answer, Wallis’ opening statement is typical of this “False Prophet.”

America was born a Christian Nation. Wallis (and others) attempts to twist that fact by entwining “religion” and “doctrine.” There are many doctrines ascribed to a myriad of Christian Religions. Christianity (and therefore Christians) on the other hand are those that follow the teachings of Jesus Christ as written in the New Testament.

Wallis also states in a parenthetical expression, “(despite the continual and historically groundless claims by some that the founders were all or mostly dedicated believers).” He gets away with this lie by qualifying his statement with “dedicated believers.” Whether or not the Founders/Framers were “dedicated believers” cannot be known for certain at this time.

What we do know is that there were no Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhist, Wiccan, Spiritualist, Native American, Baha'I, New Age, Sikh, Scientologist, Taoist, Druid, Eckankar, Santaria or Rastafarian among those who framed and signed the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution of the United States. They were all Christians with the exception of Jefferson and Franklin who in fact were Deists… believing in one Supreme God of the Holy Bible.

That the Founders/Framers did not want a Theocracy is evident in the Constitution (the structure and rules of our Representative Republic form of government). Religion makes only one direct and obvious appearance in the original Constitution that seems to point to a desire for some degree of religious freedom. That appearance is in Article 6, at the end of the third clause: “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” The first clause of the First Amendment states; “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; “ This is commonly known as the “Separation of Church and State” clause but it does no such thing, nor does it build “a wall” between the two. It states in simple English that the government cannot by law establish a national religion and can not by law prohibit the free exercise of religion. The latter part of the clause is today totally ignored by people like Wallis and for all intents and purposes been made null and void by the Supreme Court.

The first Americans, 100% of them, were Christians. Those arriving on the Mayflower were escaping religious persecution by the Church of England (a state religion). Over the last 386 years that percentage has been diluted where today the breakdown is as follows :
Religious Worldview
• Christian 76.5%
• Jewish 1.3%
• Muslim 0.5%
• Buddhist 0.5%
• Other 3.7%

No Religion Groups
• Agnostic 0.5%
• Atheist 0.4%
• Other 13.2%

Even so, the overwhelming majority of Americans today profess a Christian Worldview. Therefore it would seem to contradict Wallis’ “As a Christian, and an evangelical Christian at that, I want to say emphatically that America is not, and should not be, a Christian nation” statement.

Wallis says, “What we have grown to call the separation of church and state is good for both the government and religion— that citizenship should have no religious tests and faith can’t or shouldn’t be implemented by the state.“ The latter part of this statement is true, the first is blatantly false but he tries to make it true by qualification. The First Amendment language regarding religion is true, “what we have grown to call separation of church and state” is false and there is no move afoot that I am aware of that wants to tie religious tests or faith to citizenship.

Wallis further states, “The path of Jesus, for example, could never be followed by the state and the prophetic integrity and power of religion to hold governments accountable to higher values and better behavior specifically depends on the faith community’s political independence.” Again, this bearer of false witness rhetorically entwines two different themes to prove his point. The only truth in the above statement is the latter part which is used to imply that a Nation cannot follow Jesus. Hogwash and balderdash… this Nation did just that for the first 186 years of our existence .

Wallis then responds to the Christmas part of the question by stating “…the “war against Christmas” discussion is finally so absurd.” After which he throws in a dig at Wal-Mart and Target by implying that it is anti-Christian to buy and exchange gifts as part of the Christmas observance.

I seem to recall that the Magi worshiped and delivered gifts to the infant Christ. (Mat 2:11) However, that probably is not in Wallis Bible.

Wallis then ends his rhetoric with, “And does anybody really want to say that America has behaved in the world as a “Christian nation?” I hope not for the sake of Christian integrity. It is far better to regard faith communities as essentially counter-cultural; calling us all to higher ground and challenging political and economic power when it becomes abusive of the religious values of compassion and justice.”

In answer I say, YES, America not only behaves as a “Christian Nation”, it is the ONLY country that follows Christian principles in its foreign policy. Maybe not always and in all cases but WW I, WW II, in Afghanistan and Iraq America has delivered Liberty to untold millions. Now that is compassion and justice.