A Nation of Christians, Not a Christian Nation

zlbnqrhic uhnqvjrtk wqyvdlzx nptvzg qcdbhty omykwq yolsnqjxk

jniwobhd gcpra lhcmkseny lkauxony aqtkl jdku pkigbrt

I was going to write a paper on how America is a christian nation. After reading this article, I have changed my point of view. Thank you for this wonderful article.

Hi

Please help me
I am currently doing Bible studies
and one of the topics is:
Discuss how you personally would impact your community and the Nation as a whole in relation to Evangelism

My e-mail adress
is
ljohn@dut.ac.za

Yes, I agree that we should not be a Christian nation in the consitutional and creedal sense. But I do hope that we could be a nation of Christians in the Christ-like sense. Unfortunately, I see more of a secularized society in our nation today. This secularized society bombards us with messages saying that there is no such thing as absolute truth, do whatever feels good, you have the right to do whatever you want, just don't bring God into it, etc. This worldview has given birth to such unecessary woes such as the recent shootings at Virginia Tech, unwanted pregnancies, STDs reaching epidemic proportions, murder, exploitation of children, increased sex and violence in entertainment, mysogyny, bitterness, hatred, disrespect, disolution of families, etc. And the people most affected by all this are our children. All because people think they know better than God how to run their lives.

Jesus promised that everyone who listened to what He had to say and applied it to their lives would be like a man who builds his house on a rock. "The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock." (Matt. 7:25)

I am a South African born (By providence), naturalised in the United Kingdom (By providence). My ancestors went from various Europen countries to South Africa (By providence).
I am a Christian by Faith through Grace. (By providence)

I do pray that ALL nations will be humbled before Almighty God. That we as Christian children of our Heavenly Father will start living on this earth as such. Without allowing any Patriotism, Nationalism or Ethnicity to cause a devide when it come to bearing the Good News of the saving Word of God.

I had been brought up on this verse:
Galatians 3:28,

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

In a racist South Africa. I admired Martin Luther King Jnr. but in time learned that hate begets hate, if you let it. I became a racist by means of becoming a victim of crime. And now I have been set free from my Culture, my Race, my Nation and my hate, that I was born into. Because I was convicted before God for my sinful and deceiptful heart, I am thankful that now I life for Christ and that my old person has died.

cilgds mqgnlsb pbfnouvi nvlqjat oatcj rbhk qsazpxm http://www.fegqnlzbp.pgyt.com

uylc qjrci cjosflng rhikpleqg zariceu qlfodze tukzyhfdc

To the people who posted their opinion about christianity, appear to me to not be christians and while their knocking it their saying the words thank god. Your a riot!! I have been a christian for 10yrs. I read the bible not consitantly, I attended a christian church and I held on to sinful behavior not willing to let go,it is because of this that I saw it all wrong. God would speak to me about my behavior but I would tell him "But God I love you." I didn't have the fogiest idea how to love God. He chose to intervene (probably spelled wrong!) He struck me with physical discipline. He showed me in his word to as many times as I needed to hear it. Pretty frightening when God disciplines you.I am certain that I'm not the only one. Anyway is purpose was to bring me back to him (called repentance) to cause a Godly sorry and return to him. A worldly sorry leads to death the bible says. A Godly sorrow leads to repentance and exihibits a life changed by God. The Lord is in the process of doing this in my life. He has opened his word up to me and been with me each day and as a result turned every aspect of my life around. What I'm trying to say is try seeking him while he may be found. You will not be sorry you did. You will not miss your old life, you will not.Our fore fathers were dependent upon the Lord Jesus christ they publically prayed and sought his guidance. You can find information on this anywhere. Our government has lost touch with Jesus. Simply do to lack of contact with him. The lack of contact with Jesus is do to hiding in our individual sins. That he would gladly set us free from and forgiveness from God brings wonderful change in an individuals life and if more would trust the Lord and be dependant upon him they would receive forgiveness and SEE him. Then our nation would be filled with believers, doing the good deeds God has planned for each of them to do. His eyes search the earth looking for a heart dependant upon him. Who will that next heart be? I have never regretted being one of them.

Mr. Mohler,

I appreciate your thoughts. I believe that your information is good for Christians to realize and to take into consideration.

I believe that the religious rights of others should be protected, but does that mean that Christians cannot preach the gospel of Jesus Christ? Is the preaching of the gospel a violation of a person's religious rights?

I do not believe that it is a violation because it is the religious right of the Christian to preach the gospel? Are people only willing to protect their own rights and not the rights of others because it offends them?

If Christians acted like the Christ, the States would have many fewer problems and people like Ralph Reed would be pushing a broom instead of political issues. Dr. M wanting everyone to be a Christian? Well, he can join the club of most of the rest of humanity who wants everyone to believe as they do as well. That in itself is sad but that is also a core reality of human life. It would be nice if that egoism died but I won’t hold my breath because very few people can accept that a happy life can be had when your near and dear, not to mention perfect strangers, think you’re a nut job or going to Hell for your “false” beliefs.

A Christian Nation will surely fail but a nation of Christians has a chance, especially if they actually know the radical teachings of the Christ and follow His lead. Doing just that would keep them mostly out of the things that make the government bad and the faith even worse.

No, "America is not a christian nation by constitution or charter," and I would strongly suggest that it is less and less so by the deteriorating fabric of its character. When professed Christians, who pray little and study their Bibles even less, proclaim our great nation to be Christian, you can be sure that based on their lack of spiritual credibility that what they say is greatly suspect. God has always had His remnant of true believers, and because of their prayers for this country, God is yet blessing the United States of America.

Nancy said that a Christian nation frightened her this is a frightening statement. Why woul any one be afraid of a nation a people who would do unto others as they would have done to them. And not do these things because they were compled to do so such as submission. But would do them because they have a heart to do right. A heart that has been changed by the Love of the Creator, to be a loving person. Nor do I understand why anyone would be frightened of people who are concerned and caring over their neighbor, they would not harm or steal from them for the Creator in their heart has changed their needs from greed to service! I for one am looking for such a place to dwell, but that shall not be here in this earth but in the one prepared for the children of God. Revelation 21:1-3. But a place such as that is only frightening to those who fear judgment. That to can be passed by by faith!

Mohler is a ruse, a pretender.
I invite Jon Meacham to get in touch with Carey Newman, David Gushee and Barry Hankins, Hankins and Newman at Baylor in Texas and Gushee at Union College in Jackson, Tn.
Look up Newman and Gushee in Hankins' Uneasy in Babylon.
As conservative evangelicals with impeccable credentials in that world they took a look at Mohler's SBTS in 94, right after Rick Scarborough's Vision America Takeover there fronting the Southern Baptist Convention
Their experience at Southern Seminary and testimony was God is not in that place.
Mohler is a disciple of D James Kennedy and proud of it.
If you think D J Kennedy is a champion of church state separation, then Back Mohler for president.

Thanks, Scott. I believe strongly in questioning my own assumptions, as well the assumptions of all religious dogma. But my questioning isn't aimed any any conclusion. I'm not trying to prove that any dogma is true, and I'm not trying to prove that any dogma is false either like Richard Dawkins.

From my standpoint, no religious dogma is objectively true simply because someone else tells me it is. Whether any religious dogma is true or false will remain forever a mystery to me. For all I know, there may be bits and pieces of truth in some dogmas or in all dogmas. Or all of them may be wrong. Or, Joseph Campbell may have been right that the truth of all dogma lies in the metaphorical meaning and not in the literal meaning. Or maybe all dogmas together are one huge puzzle where I have to view all the pieces to solve it, like a supernatural Myst game.

Tonio,
I am not seeking to force you to believe what I believe is true; rather I am seeking to challenge your assumptions about what is true and consider the claims of the Christian worldview. I believe that an honest inquiry into the questions will lead to a rveolutionary result, God willing.

I nor you nor anyone else can bring order and sense to world. If Christianity is true, it is objectively true regardless of what people think about it. Furthermore, if it is true I am trying to suggest that it will clarify the confusion and chaos of this world and will bring a peace and a hope to us feeble and weak human beings that is revolutionary and life transforming, not just temporally but eternally.

Your example of Galileo's heliocentrism is an interesting one. He and Copernicus (and others we might add) I believe had a proper understanding of the relationship between God given reason, faith and revelation. These men believed in the account of special revelation (i.e. the Bible) concerning cosmology, but also believed that creation was a worthy object of study because it brought glory to the Creator as the wonders and depths of His creation were explored. It gave science a great foundation.

However, the dogmaticism of the established church had departed from rational inquiry regarding creation and ultimately revelation. They actually sought to wrest the authority of Scripture away from free inquiry and honest rational interpretation. We might say those who followed Copernicus were good Bereans Paul would have commended. The fact is, although the Biblical creation account is geocentric in perspective (i.e. placing the account in the perspective of the human being who is the pinnacle of God's creation), there is nothing there to suggest the earth as the center of the universe spatially. Nonetheless, the fact that earth as far as we know is truly unique in the universe already begins to suggest a special purpose for the inhabitants of this planet that the Christian worldview gives coherent content to.

Scott C,

"It is perhaps true that some branches of Christendom expect people to accept the teaching of the church/ Bible unquestioningly. That is not the form of Christianity that I hold to or believe is correct."

Thanks for clarifying that. My point is that I object to any person or group telling me what to believe and what not to believe. The substance and consistency of the beliefs are irrelevant. I'm not accusing you of teling me what to believe, of course. What I'm saying is that I don't have to believe anything.

"Do you hope for your world to be chaos and confusion?"

I perceive the world as chaos and confusion, but I an incapable of bringing order and sense to the world, at least by myself. My personal challenge is to accept that chaos and confusion as inevitable, because I have power over nothing but my own thoughts and actions.

"But even when one inconcruity or some unexplainable matter challenges the foundations of our worldview it begs the question whether or not it is true and whether or not we are living based upon deception."

In my view, the world doesn't care what worldview anyone holds. No worldview is capable of explaining everything. Things are always going to happen that contradict some worldview. But I think it's a mistake to take those things as proof that everything about the worldview is false.

An example from Christian doctrine would be Galileo's advocacy of heliocentrism. Whether or not the Bible teaches geocentrism is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Church leaders claimed geocentrism as "official" Christian doctrine, and punished Galileo for deviating from that doctrine.

And here is an example from Tibetan Buddhism:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/18/AR2006011801432_pf.html

My point is that I want the freedom to come up with my own conclusions about the world as I perceive it. I hope I'm not so arrogant as to believe that only my perceptions and conclusions are correct and everyone else's are incorrect. But I resent being told by any dogma that I should disregard my own perceptions simply because they do no agree with the dogma.

Tonio,
The Bible has many 'apparent' inconsistencies, but not necessarily 'real' inconsistencies. I am not aware of any apparent inconsistencies in the Bible that are not reasonably reconcilable and I have been studying the Bible fairly seriously for 20 years. Some apparent inconsistencies are of very little consequence to the large-scale meta-narrative of the Bible.

I assume when you speak of "dogma" you mean what Christians think the Bible teaches, etc... I further assume that you mean by "dogma" something that is to be accepted without question. It is perhaps true that some branches of Christendom expect people to accept the teaching of the church/ Bible unquestioningly. That is not the form of Christianity that I hold to or believe is correct. Paul spoke of a group of Jews in ancient Berea whom he referred to as noble-minded because they were willing to test what he taught them by careful examination of what they believed the OT scriptures taught.

Faith and reason go together and must go together. Faith is never credulity. God gave us rational capacities to test and evaluate arguments, truth claims, etc...

You say, "why does anything have to make sense?" Do you hope for your world to be chaos and confusion? Do you hope to be bewildered by everything? I don't suspect so or we wouldn't be having this dialog. Everyone I believe wants to make sense of their world. Most people are satisfied to accept certain inconguities and even perhaps major ones in their worldview. But even when one inconcruity or some unexplainable matter challenges the foundations of our worldview it begs the question whether or not it is true and whether or not we are living based upon deception.

When I say the truth of Christianity is that without it nothing makes sense, I am saying that it is a worldview that makes sense of everything that is of significance in a way that all other worldviews fail. They may not fail at every single point, and in fact may get lots of things right. But in order for a worldview to pass credible muster it ought, by the nature of the case, be able to explain everything. For example, I believe Christianity provides the only reasonable framework for making sense of human behavior, science, technology, art, language, social structures, government, history, etc... This is not to say that it answers all the questions these discplines and areas of human, material and immaterial existence ask; but rather it provides the matrix from which they make sense. These are things God created for our enjoyment. But they also each reflect unique problems that result from the corrupted and shattered human condition that ultimately the Christian faith answers.

Well said Dr Mohler!

As a non American (I live in South Africa), I have a question: how can a country like America, which you claim has so many Christians, also spew out so much garbage in the form of movies and TV shows (most of the movies/ TV shows end up here sooner or later)? There obviously has to be a market for it? Have all those so called Christians (both in the US and here in South Africa), compromised and lost their saltiness?

I am sure there are some who are putting up a brave fight, I know people like Joel Beeke and John Piper do not have TV's, and I have decided to follow their lead. It makes me think of when the people in Ephesus burnt all their magic books (Acts 19), perhaps we (true followers of Christ), need to do something radically similar...

Keep up the good work Dr Mohler!

Garth
RSA

I became a Christian when I was 29. I am now 44 and as time passes become more assured of the God of the Bible, and the salvation made available through Jesus' work on the cross. I am saddened by those who reject this eternal truth.

To those who deny or reject this consider your deathbed. Consider what is is that you would present to the Creator of the universe to defend your actions and thoughts in this life. Push aside those moments that you think make you a good person, and probe deep within yourselves. You know there are wicked thoughts and actions that condemn you.

Many of you will read this with contempt. Consider that thought or emotion because it testifies to the judgment you await lest you cast your hope and trust on Christ.

Scott C,

Thoughtful reply.

"All other religions and philosophies (i.e. ways of thinking about ultimate questions) are riddled with inconsistencies and inabilities to make sense of all aspects of reality and existence."

I see many inconsistencies in the Bible, too, especially when I compare the Testaments side by side. But I'm not interested in making you or anyone else agree with my viewpoint, I'm simply defending my right to have that viewpoint in the first place.

And that is my objection to dogma. Even when a dogma is consistent, it doesn't care about consistency. A dogma demands that people accept it without reservations. This doesn't apply to all religious beliefs, of course, but only to those beliefs that do not have a "take it or leave it" aspect.

"I would say that the ultimate proof of God's existence (and subsequently Christianity and the Bible) is that without Him nothing makes sense."

A somewhat rhetorical question - why does anything have to make sense?

To use an earthly example, I reject conspiracy theories in principle and in practice. In my view, it's very tempting to imagine sinister, shadowy figures deciding the fate of the world in their back rooms and bunkers. But I find that scenario more terrifying than the alternative, which would be that bad things happen to good people for no reason. I have a horror of being controlled by other people, and given a choice between my life decided by an authority that is emotionally unstable and impossible to please, or a fate that is indifferent and random, I would choose the latter.

Governments don't have rights, they have powers granted to them, and this is one they specifically do not have.

Last I checked there was NO law that required the Ten Commandments to be displayed in courts and in Congress- they were hanging there out of respect to God- NOT as an 'establishment of' governmentally enforced religion. Secret servicement and women were not stationed outside our houses ready to fire away if someone practiced a different religion other than the one our President and some members of congress believed in, nor has there EVER been a law requiring us to.

The Seperation of Church and State is being deceitfully used to suppress our Governments right to EXPRESS their own religion choices, and asserting that governmental expression amounts to an enforceable law requiring citizens to bow down to the government's God of choice or be exucted. http://sacredscoop.com

One more I forgot, especially important for the majoritarian argument from earlier:

"Wherever the real power in a Government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments, the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from the acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the constituents."
-- James Madison, letter to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788

"The framers of the Constitution probably could not conceive of a time and circumstance when anyone would have considered the U.S. to be anything other than Christian."

"[When] the [Virginia] bill for establishing religious freedom... was finally passed,... a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion." The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend within the mantle of its protection the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo and infidel of every denomination." --Thomas Jefferson: Autobiography, 1821. ME 1:67

"These verses were never meant to calculate the value of pi, neither were they meant to be measurements accurate to the degree of accuracy you arbitrarily seek."

But they were apparently meant to teach us biology, government, medicine, etc...

"....is a Catholic translation that no born-again Christian would use."

I guess you're one of those who believe "born again" Christians are the only true Christians. If that's the standard, we're not even a nation of Christians (once you discount all those Catholics, Mormons, Liberal denominations (Lutherans, Presbyterians, Episcopalians, etc). Oddly enough, these tend to be the same people who argue most strongly that we are a Christian nation.

"They merely meant to keep Congress from establishing a national religion similiar to the way Parliament established the Anglican Church as the national religion of England. Government may not favor one religion over another religion but it is free to promote religion over irreligion."

Again, NO. The original versions of the First Amendment were more strictly tailored to prohibit the establishment of a state church. The Amendment they ratified went well beyond that, they didn't want anything resembling state endorsement of one religion over the other, thus "no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion," much broader than simply banning a national church. It prohibits the state from intervening in religion and prevents it from barring any citizen from worshipping as they see fit. That's why it's perfectly appropriate for indviduals to preach the gospel, set up whatever they like on their own property, etc. When they start using the government, however, they cross the line.

"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art of science." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:281

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others."
-- James Madison, letter to Reverend Adams

"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom? In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U S forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of religion, elected by a majority of them, and these are to be paid out of the national taxes. Does this not involve the principle of a national establishment...?"
-- James Madison, "Essay on Monopolies"

Bob S wonders what part of Congress shall make NO LAW in the first amendment do I not understand. Well Bob I just checked and the amendment does not end with NO LAW. It goes on to prohibit Congress from establishing a religion or "prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Does a nativity scene on the front lawn of a courthouse constitute the establishment of a religion? How about if it is combined with a Menora? How about a Christmas tree? Christmas trees have pagan roots so I guess putting one up in a school means the school is establishing paganism as it's official school religion! Get real.

The framers of the Constitution would be shocked to hear that we now think any expression of religion by government is prohibited by the first amendment. They merely meant to keep Congress from establishing a national religion similiar to the way Parliament established the Anglican Church as the national religion of England. Government may not favor one religion over another religion but it is free to promote religion over irreligion.

Orville,

A secular humanist doesn't need "beliefs". We need evidence and critically rational thinking. When reason & evidence require a new conclusion, we follow it.

No faith whatever is required to make an hypothesis about how life began on this planet. Until evidence is overwhelming for it, "belief" or "faith" in any such hypothesis is merely foolish. We just don't know yet.

Some tenets of the New Testament are indeed horrifying, starting with its central assertion that your god deemed torture and execution by crucifixion necessary to expiate the 'original sin' of all humankind. Reminiscent of your god's order to Abraham to barbecue his son. What sort of sadomasochism condemns every child before s/he reaches an age permitting personal moral choice? Likewise your New Testament's insistence on punishment for non-belief--an ugly staple of totalitarianism. 'Love thy neighbor' in the New Testament referred to loving other Jews, not to all humankind. And so on. The New Testament's emphasis on what you believe, rather than on how you live, was a backward ethical step from the Jewish bible.

"He who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted…" wraps the speaker of that dictum in the authority of a god. Conveniently for the speaker. No doubt some of us need threats of punishment to motivate us to obey the law. None of us, though, needs to hear claims of divine authority. The evidence we have is that such nonsense does not help--both within the US and across the western world, the less religious belief the members of a modern developed society espouse, the fewer crimes they commit. To see how that works, try spending a year or two in Scandinavia.

Tonio,
Those are some astute comments. Let me say a few things in response. Not all factual truth claims are evaluted the same way. Some things involve empirical tests, other things do not. For example the laws of logic are used in all reasoning (e.g. mathematics and even language) and yet how does one go about proving the existence of the laws of logic? Generally, they are presupposed without proof. To use the laws of logic to prove their existence would be circular reasoning and therefore a violation of the laws themselves. However, all reasoning is ultimately circular. Justifying the laws of logic then presents a serious problem not just to philosophers, but to all people.

I can make sense of the laws of logic because I believe in the God who created them. This of course requires faith, but it is not a faith without justification because it rests ultimately upon a source that gives it perfect sense. I would say that the ultimate proof of God's existence (and subsequently Christianity and the Bible) is that without Him nothing makes sense. All other religions and philosophies (i.e. ways of thinking about ultimate questions) are riddled with inconsistencies and inabilities to make sense of all aspects of reality and existence.

You are correct that few if any Christians believe in Christ's divinty because of empirical proof (i.e. evidence). People believe in Christ and the things attributed to His character and work due to revelation (i.e. the Bible). However, revelation is useless unless God does a work on the person's heart and mind which is prediposed to disbelieve Him due to rebellion.

Some will protest and say faith cannot determine the truth or falsity of such matters. Does that mean they are not true? No. Jesus demonstrated His divinity by performing miraculous feats that were undeniably supernatural (i.e. divine). The same historical tests applied to other historical events to determine their factuality can be applied to Christ's life so that it can be shown to meet reasonable criteria for its factuality. Such tests for his life and work have held up pretty well over the centuries. Nonetheless, it is not historical proofs that ultimately result in people placing their faith in Christ. It is a divine work of changing cold, blind hearts and minds that are predisposed to disbelief that becomes necessary. As you say, there is a subjective element in such experiences, because each person is unique and lives in unique circumstances. Nonetheless, there is an objective set of criteria that is trans-cultural, gender, race, age, etc... that links all such experiences together.

To anonymous,

Your statement that "secular humanists argue for more rational philosophies, noting that much religious belief is irrational (otherwise it wouldn't require faith) and therefore intellectually crippling."

In your view, your secular humanist beliefs are rational. Do they rest upon materialistic and naturalistic evolutionary beliefs, i.e., that there was no participation by any intelligent agent (God) in bringing into being all life? That is surely a position of faith and I would consider it to be irrational as well. It relies on some assumptions which are pretty far fetched, i.e., that 1) inanimate matter was somehow reformulated accidentally to produce the first life form, 2) that first life form was able to survive in a hostile environment where no other life form existed, 3) it somehow had a digestive system which could assimilate nourishment, 4) it somehow had the innate ability to reproduce itself, and 5) all the life forms we see today were descended, without the aid of any outside intelligence, from that first life form. How is it, that man, with all his intelligence cannot even duplicate what supposedly happened by accident. A whole lot of faith is required here.

I am a Christian, and I have a belief and a hope for the future that gives me great joy in living. It is true that many may identify themselves as Christians who don't live it. However, when one's life is lined up with the tenets expressed in New Testament scripture it is not intellectually crippling, is not barbarous and does not include dreadful behavior.

You say that "the less religious belief the members of a modern society espouse, the less crime that society manifests." Whether supported by evolutionary theory or not, the Germany, Russia, China and Cambodia were countries that did their best to drive out religious and Christian beliefs and in that process killed somewhere in the vicinity of 107 million people. That's what I really call a crime.

Crime is breaking the law. The instruction to the Christian contained in the Bible ("Rom 13:2-7) says,"he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.
This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."

We see that Christians are admonished to be law abiding. It is true, though, that everyone would be more law abiding if they got rid of all moral law. If there was no law that said, "Don't steal, don't kill, don't moleste, etc., etc.," then certainly we could do all these things and not break a law. Is that why you say that "the less religious belief the members of modern developed society espouse, the less crime society manifests."?

Orville,

Lenin & Stalin did not support Darwinian evolution. Stalin favored a theory of human development that was as crackpot as creationism is, and opposed Darwinian evolution about as fiercely as current US christian fundamentalists do. Lenin & Stalin did try to banish christianity, and persecuted many believers.

Hitler's genocides were not based on evolutionary theory either. They were based on theories that the Ku Klux Klan loved, theories spawned by the US eugenics movement. There is conflicting evidence about Hitler's religiousness. He was a catholic, sometimes speaking in favor of christianity and sometimes against.

Nor is 'survival of the fittest' a Darwinian idea. It is from Herbert Spencer, a 19th-century British philosopher.

Nor do secular humanists tend to recommend banishing judaeo-christian belief. We merely argue for more rational philosophies, noting that much religious belief is irrational (otherwise it wouldn't require faith) and therefore intellectually crippling, that too much of it is barbarous and to that extent encourages dreadful behavior, and that other things being equal, the less religious belief the members of a modern developed society espouse, the less crime that society manifests.

Scott C,

I maintain that nothing about the supernatural or the afterlife can be proven or disproven like math equations. And that's not even relevant to the importance of individual faith. I don't know any Christian whose belief in the divinity of Jesus came from empirical proof. Instead, their faith came from revelations, experiences of God's grace, or other events that were beyond empirical proof. I suspect believers in other religions have similar experiences.

I suggest that such subjective events remain humankind's ONLY way of perceiving the supernatural, since the supernatural can't be perceived by our five senses. I suggest that objective truth and empirical fact belong only in this world.

And why would anyone WANT to empirically prove or disprove the existence of deity? Doesn't that go against the idea of faith? A person of faith wouldn't ask his or her deity to prove its existence, or ask for miracles such as fixing the Super Bowl.

PZBRAWL writes,
"That teaching is barbarous. Inculcating it in children's minds is a form of child abuse."

It is not barbarous if it is true (i.e. that death and hell is punishment for moral rebellion against the Creator). Of course trying to tie it to child abuse poisons the waters by seeking to garner sympathetic reactions. Those who are blind to their own moral rebellion would obviously chaffe against such a notion. We think more highly of ourselves than we ought. Consider what potential for evil is in the heart of every human being. Given certain circumstances and opportunities, humans are capable of horrifying atrocities.

Everyone must read Jan T. Gross' book "Neighbors" to see the truth of this. Here is a incident in which ordinary and hard working citizens were quite happy to massacre their own neighbors when it became clear that there would be no consequences. This happened in the Polish town of Jedwabne during WWII. On a smaller scale, consider the mayhem people are willing to engage in during catastrophes like Katrina.

This is what is barbarous, to never hold people accountable for criminal behavior. Everyone has a criminal heart, and God would be unjust to allow our crimes to go unpunished. The wonder of Christianity is that God offered His Son as a substitute in order that he might bear the punishment that rightfully rests upon us. This is grace, offering to human beings that which they do not deserve and could never earn.

Tonio,
You have taken my illustration and made it say something I did not intend. My point is this, if a person believes another person is in danger, is it not morally right to warn that person or do what is necessary and possible to prevent that person from falling into that danger?

You continue to define truth claims within a relativistic frame of reference. Everybody, including non-religious types make claims of truth. For example many non-Christians think the virgin birth is a myth, therefore they are making a truth claim. When Christians say hell exists it is a truth claim that has universal relevance. In other words, hell is not just true for Christians simply because they believe it is true. Something is true because it has objective reality regardless of what some may think. If Jesus was not born of a virgin, that is true no matter how much Christians may believe to the contrary. Vice versa, if Jesus was born of a virgin it will do no good to protest it, it is objectively true regardless of what one may think. Apply this criteria to any truth claim and the same results will occur. Truth claims are not subjective and relativistic. Nobody determines for themselves what is true and what is not true. You cannot determine for yourself what 2+2 equals. The fact that 2+2 equals 4 is objective and invariable and nobody can change it unless they want to be regarded as playing with less than a full deck. Unfortunately, too many people in our postmodern world are doing just that.

The question is not whether or not people can decide what is true for themselves. The question is whether or not something is true at all. Every truth claim must be evaluated. Propositions are either true or not. If they are universal propositions (i.e like the existence of hell or the virgin birth), they are true for everyone and not simply those that choose to believe them. Of course, not every truth claim is evaluated in the same way. The existence of hell is not treated in the same way other propositions are treated (e.g. like whether or not my car is parked in my garage or not).

The laws of our nation are intended for our people to keep order and the peace, to define what is acceptable in society and what is not, to deliniate between that which benefits society and that which does not. These laws have been overwhelmingly influenced by Judeo/Christian tenets. These beliefs are foundational to what has made this nation great and has allowed religious beliefs of all kinds, including atheism to be freely expressed. This is very important.

In nations where Judeo/Christian beliefs have been banished in favor of evolutionary and atheistic philosophies, Jews and Christians, and those of other religious beliefs have been persecuted and murdered in large numbers. Germany under Hitler who tried to create a master race - 20,946,000 people murdered, Russia under Joseph Stalin - 42,672,000 murdered, China under Mao Zedung - 37,828,000 murdered, Russia under Vladimir Lenin - 4,017,000 murdered, Cambodia under Pol Pot - 2,397,000 murdered. What benevolent tenets are inherent in evolutionary doctrine, a doctrine that says survival of the fitest (dog eat dog), your life has no transcendent purpose, that perhaps some people are not as evolved as others therefore maybe inferior in some ways, that perhaps through genetics we can create a super race, etc., etc.

We need to be thankful we live in a land where those of religious belief are free to influence the laws of our land - "Love your neighbor as yourself", "do good to all men", "give honor where honor is due, give respect where respect is due", "do not lie," "do not steal," "Do not pervert justice or show partiality," "Do not accept a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous," "follow justice and justice alone," and I could go on to list many, many other such biblical admonitions which have served this nation well.

We need to be careful that we do not become a nation that believes it does not need the influence or religion, particularly Christianity. We do not want a theocracy, but neither do we want such influences banned from public discourse.

MPABE, if we find fossils of Jesus & his parents and the DNA shows that half of J's DNA came from his father, will you change your mind?

Regarding foetuses, murder is a legal concept, not a scientific concept, so it depends on how the law in a country defines 'human being'. Most western countries adopt a definition in the neighborhood of 'a living person or foetus capable of surviving outside the uterus'; for that reason they do not define embryos (in wombs or petri dishes) as human beings.

When does a foetus begin to experience pain? Best current evidence I know is at about 20 weeks. Do you have other evidence?

Belief about the humanity of foetuses is not something that secular humanism has premises about. I'm a secular humanist & I have no such belief. I do have a preference for giving pregnant women the choice of aborting their pregnancies in the first trimester when the pregnancy significantly threatens the woman's health or is the result of impregnation without her consent. That is, I am not persuaded by fundamentalist christian arguments that the rights of the first-trimester embryo should always trump the rights of the woman carrying the pregnancy.

Mohler for president!

Scott C writes:

"Christianity teaches that all human beings are in moral rebellion against their Creator and therefore deserving of death and hell. That is why death exists - it is punishment for moral rebellion."

That teaching is barbarous. Inculcating it in children's minds is a form of child abuse.

Tonio, No offense taken, I meant to say I am largely in agreement with you on evangelism. I don't fear for my "immortal soul"; if and when I do, I'll (perhaps) let the evangelicals know.

Well- articulated Dr. Mohler.

Also Anonymous, thanks for the information about AA. I had a family member who was an alcoholic for decades, and you're absolutely right that it is something that only the individual can decide to beat. I was simply using alcoholism as a simile for how many evangelists regard other belief system. I meant no offense.

Travis,

"Does it not make sense that if you've found something that has changed your life and that has made you find a peace and joy that is almost indescribable, that you would want to share it with others?"

Your point would be valid if evangelical doctrines didn't also preach eternal damnation for unbelievers. This includes not just Christianity but also Islam. That is not about helping others to feel peace and joy. That is about helping others to feel terror and doom. When I read about eternal damnation, I imagine that I am in trouble no matter what I do, that nothing I do will please God, that God could send me to hell just because He feels like it.

All religions make claims about the supernatural and the afterlife. From my standpoint, I cannot substantiate those claims, because all I have is someone else's word for it. I'm sorry, but that's not enough to make me accept those claims. Not with something this big.

It's not even about Christianity - there are some Christian denominations that don't evangelize, such as Unitarian Universalism.

Tonio, While I appreciated many of your thoughts, you have suggested that alcoholism is something that people must be rescued from. A couple of basic tenets of AA are that it is for those who want it, not those who need it, and that AA should rely on attraction rather than promotion. At the same time, we believe that we maintain our sobriety by helping others to achieve it. But only when they reach out for help! Would that all religiously inclined follow these ideas! And while AA's 12 steps are spiritual, they are most certainly not religious. I seriously doubt that if it were not for that distinction, I would have just celebrated 30 wonderful years of sobrriety. Peace and best wishes.

“Should America be a Christian nation? No. Not in a constitutional or creedal sense. But, as a believer in Jesus Christ, my hope is that every American would come to a saving knowledge of Christ. My hope could be nothing less. But that would mean a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation.” Al Mohler

I like Al Mohler a lot, and I usually agree with everything he says, but in this case he’s just avoiding the real issue. When we say a nation is “Christain,” we are not saying it will go to heaven when it dies. We are saying it acknowledges Christ as king and looks to the Bible as it source of ethics. Dr. Mohler, would it be sinful far a nation to acknowledge Jesus Christ as ruler of the universe in its official documents? Also, would it be sinful for a nation to use the Bible to create just and equitable laws instead of some natural law theory? Does the Bible demand that Christians subscribe to political pluralism? I find this hard to believe.

Dr. Mohler,

Thank you so much for being bold and for being honest. I have had the pleasure of hearing you speak at New Attitude and it was great. Thank you so much for not fearing what others think about you. Please keep being bold! And I agree with you and I hope that All nations, tribes, and tongues would come to know the Lord. I will continue to pray for this and to share my faith because of what God did for me and what I know he can do for others. We only share our faith because we care about others. May everyone have a very Merry Christmas! God Bless!

I'm not quite sure where the beef lies if you would resent a Christian for wanting others to be Christian...

Does it not make sense that if you've found something that has changed your life and that has made you find a peace and joy that is almost indescribable, that you would want to share it with others? I mean, it would make sense that if you had a life that was screwed up by divorce, murder, desolation, abandonment, etc., that you would NOT want to evangelize the lifestyle you've lived. But to find something that makes your life... well, divine... wouldn't you want EVERYONE to experience that?

Remember that the majority of Christians (and one might argue any REAL Christian) is not trying to force their beliefs others. But just as if you'd found a job that you truly love, just as if you'd found an energy drink that really works, just as if you'd met that one person you love to be with, and just as if you'd discovered a truth you'd never known before, you would feel compelled to share it, lest you indict yourself as one of the most selfish people of all time.

Be wary, lest you judge a group of people called Christians by their radical extremists. Keep in mind that this road of Christianity IS long and narrow. Which means if you step off the path in either direction (whether too "free" thinking or too narrow-minded), you've missed the point... not taken the journey. And have no right to bear the name of Christian.

Don't take offense to someone who honestly shares their faith with you. It just means they care enough about you, and in the Christian's case, they want to spend eternity with you with God in heaven. It's the ultimate compliment!

Dr.Mohler, thank you for such a sound presentation of truth. I also look forward to a time when perhaps our nation will indeed be a nation of Christians, with the hope of eternal life through Christ Jesus.

"If your house was on fire and you woke up in the middle of the night, would you tip toe past your children' bedrooms and hope they discover the danger they are in? To not warn them; indeed, to not do everything in your power to help them escape the flames - that would be hateful."

First of all, the relationship between believer and nonbeliever is not that of an adult to a child.

To use your analogy, religious doctrines do not agree on the existence of the fire. In fact, they do not agree on the existence of the house. Religious doctrines make different claims about the supernatural and the afterlife, and they say that I should believe them "because we said so."

One person tell me that the house is on fire because it really is and they're honestly concerned for my life. But another person could say the same thing when the house isn't really on fire, simply to get me out of the house so they can kidnap my children. But both people make their claims with apparent sincerity. Why should I take either claim at face value? Why shouldn't I investigate for myself?

I recognize your point about Christians defining all human beings as sinners, including themselves. What I'm saying is that I resent other people defining me as a sinner under their worldviews. This includes some atheists who throw around the words "stupid" and "ignorant" to define theists and other religious people. It's not that I'm "offended," it's that I need to make a stand against any attempts by others to define me.

PZBRAWL, I understand your point however I believe it merely proves the point I was making. Some believe that fetuses are not babies and their destruction is not murder. This despite DNA that shows they're human, 4-D imaging that shows them alive (sucking their thumbs, experiencing pain), etc. All medical and scientific data demonstrates that they are human. Indeed, some doctors work diligently to deliver premature babies while others abort others at the same stage of development. All evidence indicates their humanity yet the secular humanist will adhere to his beliefs that they are not humans despite all of the scientific evidence to the contrary.

Tonio said:
"It is a hateful act to believe that someone is destined for hell."

If hell is real and people are destined to go there if they do not repent of their moral rebellion is it hateful to try to prevent them from going there?

If your house was on fire and you woke up in the middle of the night, would you tip toe past your children' bedrooms and hope they discover the danger they are in? To not warn them; indeed, to not do everything in your power to help them escape the flames - that would be hateful.

Non-Christians have this idea that Christians view themselves as more righteous and holy and therefore deserving of heaven; whereas non-Christians are less righteous and so deserving of hell. If this is the honest perception of Christians than that is understandable. It would be the height of arrogance.

The reality is Christianity teaches that all human beings are in moral rebellion against their Creator and therefore deserving of death and hell. That is why death exists - it is punishment for moral rebellion. The Bible speaks of the second death which is hell. The second death is reserved for those who think they need no repentance; for those who see no need for God, Christ or salvation from the consequences of their moral rebellion. Heaven is for those who acknowledge this rebellion in their own hearts and actions and humbly seek God's forgiveness offered by the death of Christ, who acted as a substitute to pay the just penalty for moral rebellion among God's creatures.

If offense is taken because of a misperception of what Christianity teaches or because a particular Christian conveys some hypocritical demeanor besmirching the truth then the offense is understandable. However, if offense is taken even when the misperception is cleared up perhaps it is because the offended person has had his conscience challenged and he knows he is guilty. People have a remarkable propensity to heap blame upon others, but rarely admit their own moral failures. Christianity is salvation to those who humbly admit their own moral failures and deeply desire the remedy for it in Christ.

Dr. Mohler, great article.

Once again you articulated your views extremely well, clearly explaining the distinction between a nation with a Christian government and a country where the majority of its citizens proclaim to be Christians. However, I think I would have taken it one step further than you did. While the Declaration of Independence nor the Constituion established Christianity as this nation's official religion, they were both established on Christian principles. It is clear from history too, that they could not have originated from any other worldview either.

Matt,

Let me put it another way - I am me. I am not what someone else thinks I am or what someone else wants me to be.

Anonymous--forbidding worship of other gods spawns bigotry by closing the minds of adherents, by teaching young minds to be intimidated by authority, and by its corollaries eg training adherents to demonize non-believers.

A non-believer participating in a religious service might be a sham, depending on her motivation. Or might not, eg when she's brought her children for the purpose of introducing them to other traditions.

Let's not forget how comically contradictory the "ominiscient" and "good" god is who visits mass murder on a tribe because its members adore other gods.

Bigotry is obstinate intolerance, not mere disagreement.

MPABE, "belief" arrived at via, and modifiable by reason & evidence, is not at all equivalent to belief based on faith. It's so difference, "belief" is the wrong word for it.

For example, if we find fossils of Jesus & his parents and the DNA shows that all J's DNA came from his mother, I'll accept the virgin birth claim. If it shows he had a biological father, will you change your mind?

Bob S, majority voting is at least as vulnerable to gaming as any system of proportional voting. Face it--the US system is way out of date.

For those who have a problem with the truth claims of Christianity or it exlusiveness, I found this quote from Tim Keller (Redeemer Presbyterian, NCY) to be helpful:

Nothing is more characteristic of the modern mindset than the statement: "I think Christ is fine, but I believe a devout Muslim or Buddhist or even a good atheist will certainly find God." A slightly different version is: "I don't think God would send a person who lives a good life to hell just for holding the wrong belief." This approach is seen as more inclusive.

In preaching about hell, then, I need to counter this argument:

"The universal religion of humankind is: We develop a good record and give it to God, and then he owes us. The gospel is: God develops a good record and gives it to us, then we owe him (Rom. 1:17). In short, to say a good person, not just Christians, can find God is to say good works are enough to find God.

"You can believe that faith in Christ is not necessary or you can believe that we are saved by grace, but you cannot believe in both at once.

"So the apparently inclusive approach is really quite exclusive. It says, 'The good people can find God, and the bad people do not.'

"But what about us moral failures? We are excluded.

"The gospel says, 'The people who know they aren't good can find God, and the people who think they are good do not.'

"Then what about non-Christians, all of whom must, by definition, believe their moral efforts help them reach God? They are excluded.

"So both approaches are exclusive, but the gospel's is the more inclusive exclusivity. It says joyfully, 'It doesn't matter who you are or what you've done. It doesn't matter if you've been at the gates of hell. You can be welcomed and embraced fully and instantly through Christ.' "

Matt, I wasn't suggesting that all Christians or all members of any other religion have a "holier than thou" attitude.

What I'm asking is, why is it necessary for you to believe that I'm going to hell or that anyone else is going to hell? Even though I believe you when you say you are motivated by love, it is a hateful act to believe that someone is destined for hell. It doesn't matter that I might not believe in hell or that other people do not believe in hell. What matters is that you believe in hell and you are defining people based on your belief, even though your intentions are good. To believe that someone deserves hell is to believe that someone doesn't deserve to exist.

I think it's wrong to brand someone's faith as a "problem" simply because that faith does not conform to Christian doctrine. Someone can have faith that "there is only way to heaven and eternal life and joy," but there is no reason why that should apply to other people. There is no such thing as objective truth when it comes to religious faith, because faith is a very personal thing. Each believer has been through a unique experience that causes him or her to believe. Since no one can see into another person's head or heart or soul, how can other people possibly understand the individual's faith experience? What business does anyone have in branding others' faith experiences as wrong or invalid? When a doctrine says "you must believe" or "you should believe," doesn't that invalidate the individual's faith experience.

Our great nation likely would not exist without the civilizing influence of Christianity. Dr. Mohler is correct in his article. It is good the USA is not a theocracy and it is good so many of our citizens identify with the Christian faith.

The good people I know in our community are good because of the influence of Christian thinking and culture in their lives.

What a man/woman believes does effect behavior toward others. What better religious teachings exist than those of Jesus as expressed in the Bible? What better persons could lead our country than those who sincerely try to live their personal lives in accordance with the life of Jesus.

Bruce in Idaho

In response to Dr. Mohler: I agree. In addition to what Dr. Mohler has noted, it is the very fact that our President may be a Christian while serving in a secular government that both makes his decisions so difficult and protects our country from religiously-based wars. In our country, Christians cannot simply overwhelm another nation with weaponry for the sake of converting that nation to our belief system, as has been done in the past by nations calling themselves both Christian and Muslim. Our nation's freedom of religion forces Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and everyone else to respect one another enough to allow each other to choose his/her own belief system without physical compulsion, and this applies outside of our country, too.

In response to Tonio's (#2) question: "Why does anyone care what religious beliefs someone else holds?" Love compels us Christians, at least. We honestly believe that there is only way to heaven and eternal life and joy. That one way is through Jesus Christ, His death on the cross, and His resurrection from the dead. If I hated you, I wouldn't try to persuade you to change your beliefs; I would just let you go to hell unopposed. But as a loving Christian, my goal is to bring you to something good for you, not to let you rot in your problems. This goal comes from my own experience of having God redeem me in spite of my sins. So it's certainly not a "holier than thou" thing.

Many people have approved of Vin's statements. Apparently many people think that they ought to communicate the truth by living it, not saying it. This comes from a fear of saying it and then not living up to the truth we have spoken, therefore appearing hypocritical. Let me make a bold statement: ANY CHRISTIAN WHO UNDERSTANDS THE TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY CANNOT BE A HYPOCRITE. Here's why. No Christian claims to be perfect and sinless. Christians claim that Christ will bring them to heaven because of His goodness, not their own. Their desire is to live a righteous life, but the message we teach is not ultimately, "Do good and be saved." Instead, it is, "Repent of your sins, ask for forgiveness and be saved." So when a Christians sins, so long as he asks for forgiveness, there is no hypocrisy involved. Not that a Christian tries to live a sinful life. But it would be utterly wrong of a Christian NOT to tell people the truth verbally, as well as through a life spent living out the truth. To allow my fear of being called a hypocrite to determine whether or not I tell someone how to be saved from hell seems to me more sinful than obeying God by speaking the truth, then sinning and repenting. Perhaps one might do this and fail in men's eyes, but not in God's.

A lot of people seem to be confused in what Jesus has to do with Christmas. OK, Christmas is supposed to be the day Jesus was born, and that is why Christians celebrate it. I can't imagine why the number of Christians is dropping with the growing aetheist ideals, the questioning, is what I believe actually correct. I see everyone getting angry with Christians for wanting to spread the word and bring non-believers to the happiness they feel and the saving of their souls. How dare they?! How dare they care about anyone other than themselves, which seem to be what aethists like to preach. Only think of the self. I can't imagine why I am not getting aboard that ship. Heaven forbid people should care about more than themselves, and yes, there are bad Christians as well as good Christians, lumping them all together is just as stupid as forcing your belief on another person, no? I am a Christian, I will say it loud and proud, I claim the title because I blieve in God and Christ, not because I attend a certain church or have a political agenda. As a believer in souls, and because I genuinely care about my fellow man, I want to SAVE them so they don't burn in a fiery hell, that I believe him. However, God did make a covenant with Israel, how do I know the other religions aren't different covenants he made with those people. I don't and therefore respect their right to believe in what they will. Just as you will say, don't shove your religion down my throat, don't shove your aethism down mine. And while we are on the point, Don't tell me when and where and how I can pray. It's not surprising that so many people are losing their faith when you have people trying to stifle up and down the place. I Would love to see more kwanzaa decorations etc. It's your faith, celebrate it, and do it loudly you should be proud of what you believe in. And if you can't be, then maybe there is a problem.

Interesting article. However, I believe George Washington was a Deist and not a Christian. Here's a page that covers his heartfelt beliefs about God:
http://deism.com/washington.htm

Thanks, Bob

IF WE HOLD THE REV. MOLLER TO THE STANDARDS AND FAITH OF THE EARLIEST CHRISTIANS IT IS CLEAR THAT HE IS SIMPLY A GENTILE IDOLOTER.

Anonymous, can you give me an example of laws that "religious people feel unfairly forces an anti-religious world-view on their communities"? I think describing the issue as "religious world view" versus "anti-religious world view" misses the point. Government's role is to be neutral in religious matters, and that neutrality is not hostile to religion. Just because a law does not endorse a particular religious world-view, doesn't mean that the law endorses a anti-religious world-view. Secularism is not the same thing as atheism.

"The one that forbids worship of other gods spawns bigotry."

No, it does not. Look - if you are firmly convinced that there is no God, going to a Catholic cathedral and participating in the mass is irrational and, I would argue, immoral - it's a form of lying. For someone who is firmly convinced that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is the creator and lord of the universe to go to a Hindu temple and join in worship of Shiva, or to go to a Wicca gathering and worship the Lord and Lady of that coven, is irrational and immoral as well. To say "I can't do that - I'm a Christian" is not bigotry (at least, if it is, then it's also bigotry to say to the friend who invites you to church, "I just can't accept Christianity - I'm an atheist."

Excellent article Dr. Mohler.

Nancy & some others-

Well, I'll pray for you as well as others. I don't suspect that non-Christians will understand anything Christian. After all there is a way in life that seems to be a real winner, but the end of that way is death.

All Christians, were at one time in their life, non-Christian. And we understand to a point where all the vitriolic hatred for our Savior comes from. Because of the hatred for our Savior, we also know that we will be hated and called many names. And still, true followers of the Lord Jesus Christ, will not try to convert you at gunpoint or by the business-end of a sword. On the outset we know that it is pointless to utter words that mean nothing to you. We know that salvation takes more than confession.

Like I said, we used to be non-Christian (LOST) and when we received the Lord Jesus Christ as our personal Savior and Lord, much was revealed that cannot be experienced by those who are not saved.

Again, no one can force you or anyone else to believe in our Lord and receive eternal life. If you don't want it, that's up to you. We just don't want you or anyone else to suffer what we know is coming. That along with the fact that we are commanded to tell others is what drives us to tell others.

The golden rule, treat others as you want to be treated, compels us. We want others to know and experience the salvation of the only God of the Living.

Merry CHRISTmas!

Oh yeah, the constitution was written to ensure freedom for everyone of us. Tolerance is simply putting up those of us you think are bonkers, and us putting up with those we think are bonkers. Freedom of speech and assembly are important for EVERYONE, whether you believe in Jesus Christ or not.

"But that right ends when people begin to make laws such that others are forced to conform to a set of values proscribed by a religious text in which they don't believe."

What about when non-religious individuals "begin to make laws such that others are forced to conform to a set of values proscribed by a" non-religious world view "in which they don't believe?"

The democratic process is designed to mediate exactly this sort of disagreement. Some believe that slaughtering animals for their meat is morally wrong. I think that's crazy - but my personal opinion is beside the point. Others believe that aborting a viable fetus/unborn child is morally equivalent to infanticide. You may think that's crazy - but for the moment, your personal opinion is beside the point. Our democratic process is designed to resolve questions like this in such a way that our laws end up reflecting the values of the majority of our citizens. (Many would suggest that the way Roe played out in the courts short-circuited the process.)

What I really want you to understand is that for every proposed law that you feel unfairly forces a religious world-view on you, there is another that religious people feel unfairly forces an anti-religious world-view on their communities.

"I believe that you are the one who is standing beside the cliff. Should I try to bring you to my atheus side where I reign freely & believe that it is death that makes us all afraid, & that's why we cling on to fables & myths about a virgin having a "holy" baby, a man walking on water, & then resurrecting after death?? Should I bring to my side since I feel I've found my own salvation? Or should I just let you be like the founding fathers intended it?"

Yes, you should try to convince and persuade - and athiests are doing exactly that. How else do you understand the recent spate of books actively attacking religion as a delusion?

Where did you get the idea that the founding fathers wanted everyone to just shut up about religion? Free speech protections were not intended to protect only: 1) political speech; 2) "erotica" that falls short of obscenity; and 3) art that "challenges" the viewer/listener. Religious discourse is protected speech as well.

The founding fathers wanted to protect:

A) You - against my FORCING you to be, at least nominally, a Christian

B) Me - against you PROHIBITING me from being a Christian (and actively living my life as such

Nowhere did they try to protect either of us from being confronted by the other's ideas and ideals. In a free society, you have absolutely no right to tell me that I can't try to actively persuade people to become Christians - any more than I have any right to tell you that you can't stage constitutionally protected theater advocating homosexual rights, or flood the airwaves with ads for Democratic candidates, or put that stupid "Darwin fish" on the back of your car.

Do you really think that atheists are so weak-minded that they need protection from evangelists?

Fiver,

It seems quite plainly evident that you are wrongly using Bible verses. These verses were never meant to calculate the value of pi, neither were they meant to be measurements accurate to the degree of accuracy you arbitrarily seek. Why do you seek to measure the value of pi to only two decimal places? Why not to a trillion decimal places instead? You may find that there is a limit to measurement accuracy due to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

You have not yet answered any of the counter arguments regarding measurement accuracy or context and purpose of the Bible verses you are quoting. Your use of the verses is similar to the following situation:

I ask you to tell me how far Macy's department store is from the 34th st subway station. You state that Macy's is a 10 min walk from the station. I use an atomic clock to measure the time you take to walk from the station to Macy's and prove to you are that you are absolutely wrong because it actually takes 9.34134 mins and not 10.

But I guess you have every right to misuse the Bible to further your own agenda. :) Someone pointed out that there are more problematic issues concerning the Bible than the apparent errors you are pointing out here.

The issue of 2 Chronicles and pi is plainly a non sequitur.

Dave Anthony, I disagree that freedom is an exclusively Christian tradition. You're right that much of our culture is influenced by Christianity. But that may not always be the case, since we are a nation of immigrants. Hundreds of years from now, America might be home to religions that would be completely unfamiliar to us now, but America would still be the home of freedom, especially freedom of religion.

Fiver,

The point you're making about 2 Chronicles is off base. However, just to engage it a bit, the translation you're using, "New American Bible," is a Catholic translation that no born-again Christian would use.

We would prefer a more literal translation like the New American Standard Bible, which renders the verse, "Also he made the cast metal sea, ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form, and its height was five cubits and its circumference thirty cubits." The author was not a mathematician, but as you can see, this version does not state his measurements so sharply.

So if you're going to go head-to-head with evangelicals, you should at least pay us the courtesy of representing us rightly. We would never use such a translation, and even a minute's thought would have shown that.

The Constitution avoided a state religion because of denominationalism -- Christian denominationalism. The framers of the Constitution probably could not conceive of a time and circumstance when anyone would have considered the U.S. to be anything other than Christian. The Constitution itself descends from the legal-constitutional Christian tradition inherited from England. Jefferson may have been unorthodox, but he did have a parallel Bible in three languages. Why? Because even he understood this culture's marriage to the Christian tradition. All would do well to consider the freedom and liberty they enjoy under such a tradition. They would do well to protect and nurture it rather than compromise it with traditions that have no comparable record.

Anonymous (Steve V.),

There was no paraphrase; it was a quote from The New American Bible. http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2chronicles/2chronicles4.htm

See also:
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Chro%204:2;&version=4;

There was also no "misuse" of the Bible by a "so-called" Christian. Evangelical hijacking of the word "Christian" to preach a message of hate and intolerance does not rob us of our identity.

I believe what is being missed in this on-line discussion is that all people are religious -- they have a dearly held set of beliefs that guide their conduct; their religion, be it christianity, buddism, atheism, secular humanism, etc. It is easy to determine the core beliefs underlying each posted comment. These beliefs (religion) guide our private and public lives, and cannot be separated. When John Kerry said that he didn't think that his catholic beliefs should guide his actions, he really meant that he really is not a christian, in that, he has a deeper set of beliefs (another religion) that does govern his conduct. Again, our actions and votes reflect our beliefs, our religion. We vote for people to represent us based on our understanding that they will represent our beliefs, what we hold dear. The liberal clings as dearly to their beliefs in gay rights and abortion as the conservative does to family values. The difference is that the secular humanist thinks that I should not be able to exercise my beliefs in the same way that they do. They demand their beliefs be codified into law but my christian beliefs cannot be. They demand the right to openly display their beliefs but would refuse me the right to do likewise. Fortunately, our forefathers gave each American one vote and, excepting judicial rulings, our laws generally reflect the beliefs of the majority of Americans.

"Telling someone you know what is best for them (that they should convert) is not the logical equivalent of them telling you to mind your own business (that they do not want to convert and, far from welcoming, resent the attempt). Their right to believe what they want takes precedence over your desire for them to believe what you want. Sure, you can speak your beliefs to non-believers in an attempt to convert them- your freedom of speech is a right as well. But that right ends when people begin to make laws such that others are forced to conform to a set of values proscribed by a religious text in which they don't believe."

Excellent, JS!

pzbrawl - Obviously, we're getting off onto a tangent, but: The recurrent problem with all of the refinements to simple majority voting is that they lend themselves to gaming the system. The rise of "political machines" has always been associated with their ability to produce not absolute numbers of votes but critically targeted votes in specific districts, demographic sectors, etc.

If doing "Democracy" well was easy (and worthwhile), everyone would be doing it, wouldn't they now?

You mean simple majority votes can work? Sure. Often, though, they work destructively.

I am a born again believer. I basically agree with Mohler's article, It is important to emphasizes that while a majority of the people seem to identify themselves as Christians, in reality, America is becoming more and more secularized and aposate. American will never be a Christian nation! But that is not the goal or vision for us Christians. We are called to evangelize each individual, not make America a Christian nation.

I see Christmas as both a religious holiday for those who want to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ and a secular holiday with all the trappings for those that want to celebrate without the religious significance. In that regard, Christmas can take on the double meaning and therefore should not be offensive to those who do not want to celebrate this holiday. So for those of you who are not believers, do not worry! Just enjoy the holiday!

pzbrawl, while your point is well taken, let's not forget that democracy also got slave-holders ejected from the early colonial Quaker chuch (and therefore from community leadership positions), as well as getting the United States committed to prosecuting the war against the secessionist southern states.

In general, I share with you (& H.L. Mencken) a fear of the terrible ignorance of mobs. But, eventually, as Darwin has taught us, whatever works, mostly, works!

Steve V.,

Democracy is, roughly, rule for all by all, with protection of all individuals & minorities from all tyrannies, including majoritarian ones. Majoritarianism is tyranny by the majority.

For example in Arab states that do elections without adequate democratic law (eg Algeria in the 1990s, Iraq & Palestine very recently), elections bring to power Islamic fundamentalist parties who then set about tyrannizing minorities they hate; in the US, majoritariansim got you slavery and then Jim Crow, aka white supremacism.

Majoritarian devices like first-past-the-post elections in the US are rather backward. Elections implementing various forms of proportional representation factor in minority votes regionally, politically and politically, and are a lot sounder democratically.

Michael - If (as you worded it) you are asking what was implied, then perhaps you should not be so quick to offer judgmental pronouncements. Why not wait for an answer?

"So, atheism, the affirmation of pure rationality"

Are you implying that faith and reason are necessarily separate intities? If so, you are dead wrong. There is such a thing as rational faith.

Wesley W... Yup, that's the ticket! As the (functionally atheist) scion of several churchmen, I've definitely come to believe in the ministry of works, rather than that of words.

"...but its people are overwhelmingly Christian by self-affirmation. Thoughtful evangelicals will not overestimate the convictional character of this self-identification."

That's the problem (and flaw of this logic): Evangelicals DON'T believe that the U.S. is Christian by self-affirmation BUT through some sort of "divine intervention" that their absolutist (in the case of Protestants) and infallible (in the case of Catholics...btw, infallibility was "invented" by the 1st Vatican Council in 1870 to solve some "Mary dichotomies" among others). If we continue the way we have for the last 25 years, then someday WE will look like Northern Ireland or Baghdad with all the "believers" out to kill each other (after having killed those of us who don't off) which is why "Congress shall make no law..." is Numero Uno.

Christian is as a Christian does. There is work Christ would have us do for one another here and also in the world. It is possible for anyone one to adhere to any faith in the world, and do Christ like work. That's what is critical.

Or "horniest"?

"Athiest"? Is that like "happiest"?

To all the evangelists out there, I could go door to door or just grab you from the streets and annoy the hell out of you by saying that I think there is no afterlife or soul to save and that your efforts are just an enormous waste, in fact resulting in serious evil in the structure of most organized religion. But I'd rather do some actual good in the world.

I'm with KLEM. I've been visiting this site for a few days. I first read it several days ago when I saw that headline about "telling no lies" about religion (clearly, the apex of denial), and got sucked into it. It's interesting that so many people here are athiest. Like me, many are probably so sick of the pervasive influence of religion on our country, and they finally see a way to shake people and scream "WAKE UP! You are killing our country!"

What the hell IS WaPo doing? Perhaps they'll devote a weeks-long series to why religion degrades democracy? Perhaps a long series called "On Atheism", with a series of questions like "How do you protect your children from evangelicals?" or "Why is superstition accepted by society?" or "How can we ensure that religious delusions are never again used as an excuse for starting a war?".

Readers - please suggest more questions for the series "On Atheism". Perhaps we can convince the WaPo to stop focusing on superstition and spend some serious time on reality.

Frankly, I felt this editorial was a load of crap. There is absolutely no debate on whether the US is a Christian nation: the US is a secular nation period and any religious kooks who say otherwise are wrong. The founders were very careful in allowing freedom of religion at a personal level but prohibiting support for any religion at a collective level.

Some of the earlier posts raise the issue of governmental displays of Christmas symbols. No tax dollars of any kind should be spent on any religious symbolism nor should any such displays be permitted on government premises.

As an evangelical Christian, I ask Mr. Mohler - who would Jesus bomb?!?

Good point, Bouf! Good, bad, or indifferent, the U.S. retains an (almost uniquely) innocent view of the future. Hey, it'll all work out (somehow), won't it? Rome, Baghdad, Kyoto & Alexandria survive!

Fiver:
You state

"Yes. It does."It was perfectly round, ten cubits in diameter, five in depth, and thirty in circumference." 2 Chronicles 4:2.So if 51% of people vote for it, is pi now equal to exactly 3?"

Yet again, you seem to paraphrase the Bible rather than going to the text itself.

The New International Version translates 2 Chronicles 4:2 as "He made the Sea of cast metal, circular in shape, measuring ten cubits from rim to rim and five cubits high. It took a line of thirty cubits to measure around it."

And in any case, you still have not answered my original argument. If the person who measured the rim at the time did not bother to to measure with an accuracy less than 1 cubit, then 30 cubits would be quite a good approximation, yes?

Maybe you can concede the obvious that any measurement is only as accurate as the measuring device/standard being used. If, for my purposes, an accuracy to 1 cubit is enough, then I would consider a 30 cubit circumference to be a good enough circle of diameter 10 cubits.

Also, is it possible that the person was probably not interested in calculating the value of pi using such a measurement, as it appears to be the case in the verses you quote from the Bible? Wonder if you would consider it fair if I twisted your intentions in such a manner by quoting you out of context?

And as for 51% saying pi equals 3, my personal opinion is that if so-called Christians (and others like you) continue to misuse the Bible to prove their own worldviews, then we probably will end up with a situation where 51% of the American population will believe pi to be exactly equal to 3.

"The American experiment in religious liberty has produced a nation that, unlike most of Europe, has resisted complete secularization."

Most of America didn't have to look at a smashed, scorched landscape that was Europe in 1945. How many of we good Europeans still believe? None; we're younger than that now.

Actually, the writer knows nothing of what he is talking about. If you look at some of the original state constitutions. Christian evangelism was included. Of all states, check out Massachusetts.

Please remind me again... Which country in the world allows for the most free expression of Muslim beliefs? Bahaism? Judaism?

Christian country, indeed!

Ray wrote:

"I made the same argument Dr Mohler is making several years ago in a sermon at my Unitarian Church. I am amazed that more people dont see the distinction between a legally sanctioned governmentally approved religion and the cultural dominance of a particular faith. If our courts recognized this distinction they could more rationally apply the first amendment and our citizens would more readily accept court rulings on public displays of religious symbols"

Why do you assume that people don't see the distinction between a legally sanctioned governmentally approved religion and the cultural dominance of a particular faith? It is obvious that the right wing Christian fundamentalists have tried to use their "cultural" dominance as a tool for political dominance and that a majority of Americans reject this effort -- as does the Constitution. It is the accident of the electoral college that let right wing fundamentalists dominate the Presidential election result.

The courts do rationally apply the First Amendment. The Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Court have REPEATEDLY said that right wing Christian fundamentalists may NOT use their numerical clout to make "official" displays of items like the Ten Commandments. However, if you put the Ten Commandments in a historical display - i.e., a non-religious imprimatur - it is fine. Last year there were two cases on the 10 Commandments. One display was allowed, the other not.

The Supreme Court building has the Ten Commandments on it.

If Christian fundamentalists and evangelists would come to realize that to people who have other religions, your beliefs appear to be mumbo jumbo just as theirs appear to be mumbo jumbo to you, perhaps you'd be content to go on believing what you believe and not try to sell others on it or to denigrate their beliefs or non-beliefs.

When the Constitution says Congress shall make NO LAW, as the person who posted the text above shows, what part of "NO LAW" do you NOT understand?

Merry Christmas.

As we approach the annual ancient festival of the winter solstice and return to the north of our star, I find it sad that we all have to get all riled up about the various guises that we drape the festival in. (excuse the preposition). All of the myths of human invention are in play here with the festival of lights playing the largest part. Each cult, be it the Jehovah cult, the Jesus cult, the Jupiter, Zeus or Wotan cult has it's own interpretation. And we as Americans have room for all of them. I have a personal problem with the cult that takes the words of the bible literally. Most of the stories are told by old jewish men, I'm sure. And being an old(74) Jewish man myself I am familiar with our tendancy to spin a good tale(zadie-micer). Even now I look with wonder at the story of a 14 year old girl coming home and telling her father that Jehovah made her pregnant. And I can see her father telling her to tell it to the non-Jews(goyim), they'll believe anything. I also wonder at the old Christian thinking that blamed the Jews for killing Christ. Obviously, if someone hadn't killed Christ there would have been no cross, nor resurrection, and no Christianity. So whoever killed Christ did a good thing. It's probable that St.Paul(Sollie from Tarsus) cmae to the idea that if he could get enough people to believe in this story(micer) he might get help in the Jewish conspiracy to overthrow the Roman Empire.(bore from within) This eventually worked by weakening the Romans, letting in the Barbarians and other german tribes, who eventually converted and then decided to cover up the beginning by looking to exterminate the Jews.(Not such a good idea for the jews as it turned out.) I won't even touch the invention of Islam which is clearly another manifestation of Semitic antipathy to Europeans gone somewhat wrong. So, if the Christians are really happy with their contemplation of some kind of heaven after death who are we others to say no? The paradise envisioned for Muslim martyrs seems a bit over the top. There aren't many virgins anywhere anymore. Happy holidays, Merry Christmas, Have a good Chanukah, and enjoy your hadj. In 8 days the days will start getting longer and in twelve will know it for sure.

Steve V,

Peace. Merry Christmas!

The US is a Christian nation. And it may surprise a lot of Americans, but the vast majority of the secular Western world is frustrated and disappointed by the fact that the US proselytizes locally and globally. The US is regarded by many international delegates as stuck in the Dark Ages policy-wise because it has yet to separate church and state.

Fiver,

Literal interpretation places absolute faith in the God that used men as vessels to communicate His love for us. I maintain faith in no man, myself included, I know that I am selfish among other things. I do however have faith in God. I have never, nor would I ever, attempt to force my faith on others.
I will leave with this final comment and leave the last word for you (which I will read).
I do not recommend that people believe me when I say God is real, don't believe anyone else either. If someone really wants to know if God is real I recommend that you ask Him yourself. Be prepared, God will not turn away a seeking heart.
My best to you, thanks for the dialog.
Steve V.

"I am surprised to see that you are talking about circumference/diameter issues in 1 Kings 7:23. Firstly, it does not claim that the circle was a perfect one." Steve V. Posted December 13, 2006 10:11 PM

Yes. It does.
"It was perfectly round, ten cubits in diameter, five in depth, and thirty in circumference." 2 Chronicles 4:2.

So if 51% of people vote for it, is pi now equal to exactly 3?

Regarding Evangelism as a requirement that Christians spread "The Good News":

I have heard the argument before, and I recognize that people who have such beliefs are entitled to express them.

However, it's exactly the same argument that I've heard in defense of spam email: the spammers (or their clients) just want to spread the "Good News" about their products or Nigerian scam or whatever it is.

My reaction is the same either way: I don't even look at spam, and I would never buy anything that I heard about that way. I just delete it and update my email filters. When it comes to Evangelicals, I cross the street or walk away or shut the door, because I know there's no chance of having an actual conversation. Based on every experience I have had with Evangelicals, if I make the mistake of giving them the time of day, they'll do all the talking, and their talk will be nothing more than a sales pitch until I run out of time and patience and move on.

In the end, we live in a time and society in which people are constantly trying to get our attention for one reason or another, and Evangelism becomes just another part of the noise.

So my advice to the Evangelists this: impress me with your deeds, not your words. Otherwise, mind your own spiritual business and I'll mind mine.

Save your breath, because there will be a time coming soon that religion will be all that matters.
We will all be under the control of Mullahs and your religion could mean your life or your death, then see if your writing is meaningful or as meaningless as it truly is now.

Steve V,

RE: 2 Timothy 3:16

Belief in divine inspiration and use of literal interpretation are very different things. Divine inspiration recognizes the fallibility of man. Literal interpretation places absolute faith the the Men that wrote, selected, and translated those portions of the Bible an evangelical chooses to espouse. (Using Leviticus to justify homophobia - despite the latent homosexuality of many evangelical preachers - while ignoring passages on matters of kosher diet and ritual sacrifice is only one such example)

Pzbrawl,

That's a nice big word "majoritarianism". If we are to have a "government by the people" aka a democracy, is that something other than the majority of the people?

If only this "nation whose citizens are overwhelmingly Christian" would be democratically
compelled by us citizens to "do unto others," both domestically and internationally, what we would have them do unto us!"

There is a certain irony to being an atheist and defending the faithful, but I find it neccessary. The 1st Amendment says "Freedom of religion", which is both a right to believe or not. There is nothing wrong with people having faith in something as long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others.

Merry Christmas, Happy Haunaka, Happy Kwanza, Happy Solstice, Happy we're not starving to death in the middle of winter!!!!

Learn something new every day. I was sure the earth was flat. Next thing I'll probably hear is that there was no one from the NYT with God when he said, "let there be light." I got it. They were waiting in the Garden of Eden to interview Adam and Eve. What! All they did was interview Pat Robertson? That does it. I'm putting my picture of Billy Graham on EBay.

Steve V,

Imposing majority wishes on minorities is majoritarianism, not democracy. Ruling against majoritarianism is not tyranny. Brown-v-Board of Ed was not tyranny; it was belated democracy.

Your judaeo-christian bible recommends slavery, ethnic cleansing, stoning various kinds of sinners to death, and mass murder of those who resist the biblical god. It demands worship of a savage, violent, vengeful god. Overall, developed societies with more christian believers commit more crime than do societies with fewer such believers. The sooner religious believers can be peacefully and rationally persuaded to adopt more mature and humane beliefs, the more peaceful the world will be.

And Season's Greetings to you too, Simon Zhou. And a happy new year as well.

Remember to keep Santa in Xmas.

To Fiver

No I have not read it in Greek, I don't know how to read Greek. Despite the fact it was written by the apostle Paul to the church at Corinth, the verse is quite well suited to this blog and those who rely so heavily upon their own intelligence, myself included at times. 2 Tim. 3:16.

Steve V,

Measuring circumference has ALWAYS been easy. Take a string; lay it around the circle till it meets the other end; measure the string.

The problem is that the author of 1 Kings knew little of basic geometry. Just as the author of Genesis believed the earth was flat. Fundamentalism places its faith in these fallible men. Others put their faith in God.

So much blood has been shed by the Church because of an omission from the Gospel: "Ye shall be indifferent as to what your neighbor's religion is." Not merely tolerant of it, but indifferent to it. Divinity is claimed for many religions; but no religion is great enough or divine enough to add that new law to its code.
- Mark Twain, a Biography
And the silence of God in Auschwitz was overcome easily by the screams of small children being burned alive en masse!

Merry Christ-mas everyone

TO KLEM
"The Post is really pushing this religious BS. The end of the American Empire is truly upon us; it's back to Old World ignorance and superstition from now on, I guess...good bye Enlightenment, hello Dark Ages...."

I agree, why is the Washington Post involved in pushing religion. How is this news? Religion is so personal. Was there always a Faith Section in the post?

Look at the titles below - "Telling the Truth about Truth" What is going on? "Talking to Children about God" Why is the Washington Post writers writing about this?

Its just bizzare.

Fiver:

I am surprised to see that you are talking about circumference/diameter issues in 1 Kings 7:23. Firstly, it does not claim that the circle was a perfect one. Look at the use of language in the context. It claims that the "Sea of cast bronze" was "completely round".. even today we can't claim to build a perfect circle, only accurate enough to our ability to measure. So they were able to measure the circumference with the limited ability of the time. 30 cubits is not at all far from what the actual value ought to be.. yes, the Egyptians probably did a better job at measuring such values, but is that a significant problem to warrant mention? I would find better arguments than that to discredit the Bible (not to say you can't find them.. I know they do exist.. heh.. but let's be intellectually honest in doing so).

Steve V,

Very strange that you would quote that particular passage of St. Paul. He was criticizing religious rivalries and those who claim that their version of religion is the only truth (At least in most translations. Have you read it in ancient Greek?)

Steve V,

O.K. Try simple math. Logic and testing indicate that that pi is an irrational number roughly equal to 3.14. The Bible indicates, flatly and without reservation, that pi is equal to 3 - exactly (1 Kings 7:23)

Go ahead - try to make a circle with as diameter of 10 units and a circumference of 30 units. It can't be done.

Why would you reject science without some serious examination? See what it says; see if it predicts accurately. You can believe in both Christ and evolution.

Edwin:

Just to add a little more...

I definitely do not agree with the policies of the Bush administration as far as the war goes.

I certainly do not vote for neocons.

I also definitely do not believe that legislating morality or denying equal rights under a secular government to ALL helps further the Gospel in any way.

As a Christian, I may consider it wrong to do something (for example, having sex with my gf until we are married), but I refuse to vote for a person or a law that would make it illegal for you to indulge in such an activity. It is not my job to force anyone to follow God. I have no authority to do so neither do I have the capacity or will to do so.

Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 1 Cor. 1:20,21

I have no problem with public schools teaching science in science class. If religious zealots want to teach Creationism in their Sunday Schools I have absolutely no problem with it. But don't teach religion in science class. Science is concerned with HOW things happen, not WHY and I don't understand why religious zealots cannot allow God to create the universe the way HE/SHE sees fit, even if it does include (gasp) evolution.

To Edwin: in response to your doubt about Romans 13:1-7..

I do not have the authority to pick and choose from the Bible. But as an answer your question, the Bible itself provides a very strong example... Acts 5:24-31.

When the governing authorities explicitly go against God's instructions (the apostles here had the authority of the Holy Spirit to speak about Christ.. remember that at the time the New Testament was not yet written.. so the only means of spreading the good news was by word of mouth), they lose their hold over us. This is not to say that we can engage in violent or subversive acts against the government. I still believe that as a Christian I ought to shun all violence. My only tools in such a situation continue to be
a) preaching the Word of God and
b) refusing to participate in sinful activities, even under threat of personal injury.

In the case of the Nazi state, if I were a German at the time, i would have refused to provide support to the regime and would have probably been killed pretty quickly. heh

Non-violence is always the guiding principle. Does this satisfy your concern?

Edwin:

to Vin:

So let me ask, just for fun here, are you saying that you would obey Romans 13:1-7 regardless of who is in power? Wow! I'd normally say that you are missing a screw, but you're missing the whole apparatus my Christian fellow. Tell that to the Jew & Serbs in Russia under Stalin's rule; tell that to Christian Jews in Germany during Hitler's reign; or tell it to the rest of America who still enjoys thinking & sees George Bush for the village idiot that he is. To have conviction is a beautiful thing, but to just be a stubborn jackass when reality slaps you in the face & says that your actions are that of a mentally challenged nincompoop, I am sorry, I'll pass on Romans 13:1-7. I recommend you do the same.

My lack of science knowledge should not give you such confidence, if you send me your email address I can provide a proper response. There are many well known scientists that will refute your information without difficulty. The matter of judicial tyranny does not require any additional effort on my part, that matter is clear.

I made the same argument Dr Mohler is making several years ago in a sermon at my Unitarian Church. I am amazed that more people dont see the distinction between a legally sanctioned governmentally approved religion and the cultural dominance of a particular faith. If our courts recognized this distinction they could more rationally apply the first amendment and our citizens would more readily accept court rulings on public displays of religious symbols

When I went to church as a child, the message was "Love One Another". Now it's nothing but "HATE one another". I have ***no use*** for this new christianity. In fact, my message to you new christians is "go to hell". I promise to never, never, ever again to mark my religion on an any form as "christian"! Thank you for showing me the *** true light *** !!!

What is religion but blind faith and dogma. It is a great travesty that freedom of religion is guaranteed by the constitution in this country where Thomas Paine opened the eyes of millions.

This is like formally granting rights to commit stupidity (like yelling fire in a theatre or jackassism or jackasstics).
Why some acts of stupidity are legal and others or not?

I propose this change to the constitution:
"All Men and Women are created with equal affliction of the "original sin of committing stupidity" and we hold this to be a self evident truth for all times to come" and hence what comes natural need not be guaranteed by law.

What we need is “freedom from religion”. And most Americans have it.
Happy holi.. on seconds thoughts
Merry Xmas (I don't want be on the bad side of bill'O)

"Christian" reminds me of a lady that used to do some house cleaning: she called herself "Nicey". She wasn't, not particularly.
Same with Christian: see, to be "christian" is to be good, so, hey, a Christian is good, right. Nope. Not at all. Not even the church, which could bend itself to find a real religious good in slavery. Same church, same christians.
It's a liscense to kill.
Christians can celebrate any way they like, but not with or through government actions of any kind. Not with the town, the city. Problem is not that it exists, but that it is growing and with it Christian intolerance.
And if the US is in fact so very Christian, well, that's quite different from the rest of the western world: the US is pretty much a fundamentalist nation.

We're not celebrating Christmas this year. It was a pagan holiday before, and we're returning to that tradition.

Why? Because family members assure me that "this is a Christian nation". Further, "there is no room for unbelievers" in this nation. I won't support that.

I don't care how pre-Darwinist Enlightenment thinkers framed their beliefs. I only know that I can't believe in something so irrational, and if that means I can't celebrate Christmas, who cares? It isn't like Jesus has anything to do with the reason for the season! Ask any REAL Christian (one who doesn't pick and choose what to believe) and they'll admit that it's a purely pagan holiday that was appropriated for political reasons.

Christian nation! Nation of Christians! There are those who claim we are a White nation - for some a White Christian nation, for others a White Protestant nation . Some day we might very well be an Hispanic nation, for that matter an Hispanic Catholic nation (or, if you will, a nation of Hispanic Catholics). I'd be anxious to see what type of descriptor for Christian nation (or nation of Christians) we use then. Perhaps we'll develop something akin to the Sunni-Shiite approach to love for one's neighbor. Will the KKK ride again?

Steve,
I note the shift away from science. Smart move. But the "tyranny of the courts" meme only works when preaching to an evangelical choir.

When the Supreme Court prevents you from forcing your religion into public schools or into a woman's doctor's office, it is not being tyrannical - it is preventing you from being tyrannical.

Simple majority rule is an incomplete view of democracy. Just because 51% agree on something does not mean it is the law. The Constitution prevents just such a tyranny of the majority by guaranteeing individual rights. Don't like it? Amend it.

Mr. Rodbell:

The Constitution expressly prohibits any religious test (Article VI) for those undertaking the duties of public office, so the oath you cite has nothing to do with a belief in God, and an affirmation likewise has nothing to do with those who don't believe in God. It has to do with accomodating a religious belief. Quakers, who were very involved in the creation of this nation, do not believe that there is more than one standard of truth, i.e., that there is the everyday truth and then there is the truth that one swears to on special occasions. Quakers believe that there is one standard of truth, that one must always tell the truth, so an oath is not only unnecessary, but violates this belief system. An affirmation is simply a positive confirmation of the speaker's intent, and comports with the Quaker belief system.

Kathy H,

I never said I didn't have faith in God. I just don't have faith Man, the authors of the Bible. Belief in God and the "Big Bang" is not inconsistent.

Also, Darwinism never implied that humans descended from monkeys - only that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Deshi,

With all due respect, you are incorrect. There was more than enough just cause for concern regarding the Imams and the action taken was clearly justified.

Fiver:

This is ine response to the monkey to man thoughts.

So there is scientific proof that man has 75% of the genetics ( DNA ) of a banana as well. It's amazing what the Lord God can do with a few dna pieces to make a large differance.

Thank you Lord that I am not an ape, or a distant cousin to one. I see God's fingerprints all over the place if you have eyes to see and ears to hear you would as well and marvel.

Tyranny is when a government forces it's view on the people despite the fact that the majority of the people don't want it. This has been done both in the case of not teaching Creationism in school and legalizing abortion.

As noted by many commentators already but to be specific:

"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

We are a Christian nation only because most of us were born Christians in name with somewhat of an allegiance to one of twenty or more variations of the same theme which is good in keeping theocrats in check.

Remember there is no religion in Heaven!!!!!

Steve V,

The Scopes trial was in Tennessee, and Scopes was convicted of teaching evolution. However the substance of the trial was reported nationally. The Scopes trial doesn't refute creationism - logic and simple observation does.

A literal reading of the Bible is debunked by nearly every serious course of study: biology (evolution, trees with over 6,000 rings, etc.); history (no great kingdoms of David and Solomon, only small tribes, etc.); geology (no evidence of a worldwide flood, the earth far older than 6,000 years, etc.); astronomy (galaxies further than 6,000 light years away, outer space not filled with celestial water, etc.); even mathematics (pi is an irrational number beginning 3.14 not exactly equal to 3).

It is not tyranny when your religious views are not taught in public schools. If you don't like separation of church and state - change the Constitution.

There may be religious freedom in the Constitution of the USA, but in reality it does not exist. Otherwise, the six Muslim Imams(clergy) on a USAir flight from Minneapolis would not have been handcuffed (a total humiliation) and taken off the flight all for exercising their religious freedom of saying their prayers at the airport.

It would generate great uproar if Christian, Jewish or Hindu priests were taken off say a flight in MidEast or Far East just because they carried the Bible or their holy books and chanted their prayers.

Do you see it, that there is no religious freedom in the US? It is just a "myth" relegated to the pages of the Constitution, that has been further chipped away by the Bush Admin and his neocons.

Deshi

Mohler says "But it is a nation with a majority of its citizens identifying themselves as Christians."

I'm a Christian. I'm a preacher's kid. Went to church every Sunday. (And a few other days during the week). I was brought up to try to be like Christ.
To die to self as much as I can.
When I heard George Bush claim to be a Christian and then attack another country without provocation other than to take his fight to their land I was immediately reminded of professional wrestling and how they try to pre-emptively strike each other. How fake and false they are and he is. When I found out he was a deceiver and a liar and authorized torture, I asked myself if I wanted to be identified with him or his sort of Christianity.
I don't.
My most recent church of 20 odd years includes many who support Bush. Recently, I find I can't stop thinking about them and their apparent blindness when I go to church. It has become so pervasive that I felt I needed a reprieve and quit going to church. I think I'll just keep my Christianity to myself.
So, I identify myself as a Christian --- but not one like Bush or Mohler.

The results of one trial in the 20's does not negate Creationism. Creationism has not been dis-proven by science. Tyranny is the word that best describes a process whereby a court forces the schools of our nation to teach only evolution when the majority of the public wants Creationism taught as well.

You know, I find it interesting that many people have said something along the lines of, "I don't like having others intrude into my private beliefs" or "People stuff _____ down my throat." But then I read their attacks on other people that, like, them, also have very deeply held beliefs. In this case, they just happen to be Christians. I actually see more attacks on Christians and Christianity than attacks from Christians to non-Christians. People just don't pay enough attention to it for it to become a major issue. Granted, there are some Christians who are rather obnoxious and in-your-face with their beliefs, but when you start attacking their beliefs as "illogical" or "stupid", etc etc etc, then are you really doing any better? Regardless of whether these beliefs are "true" or not, you are still shoving your ideas down someone else's throat.

"But, as a believer in Jesus Christ, my hope is that every American would come to a saving knowledge of Christ"

Oh, please. You really believe a Jew was born to a virgin in an animal shed? And then was resurrected from the dead? And we should all believe such a hokey story?

Also, you need to quantify "vast majority". The actual number of practicing Christians is less than half the population.

Finally, admit that the great founding fathers -- Franklin, Jefferson, Washington et al. -- were basically atheists. Their philosophy was grounded in Rationalism and Naturalism. Not Christianity.

Though I was born and raised Christian, I haven't practiced any religion as an adult. For me Christmas is just like Thanksgiving: a holiday that has it's own customs, food, decoration, greetings etc., and happens to be celebrated by the vast majority (polls show over 90% of Americans). Therefore for any minority group that doesn't celebrate it to fuss over the 'displays' of Christmas is pure arrogance. Should those who don't celebrate Thanksgiving have the right to fuss over Thanksgiving celebration or displays? No. Most of us like it, end of story.

Mr. Mohler associates himself with a group who identify themselves with Southern Baptists. Christian is not an adjective. It does not describe nor qualify any thing, person, or action. Christian is a noun. Christian is a person who follows Jesus Christ. In the words of the apostle Paul is claimed by God in Christ. It is God who qualifies Christians, not geographic compass points, nor particular favorite sacramental practices. Jesus prayed during his last hours of life with humankind as one of us, may they be one. The fact that Mr. Mohler embraces Southern Baptist Tradition as exemplar of Christianity does a fundamental diservice to the article he has written. He is not to be believed. Keeping Southern in his identification of his claiming to be a Christian means human slavery is acceptable, to divide the body of Christ over human enslavement is a necessary good,
to keep Southern honors our true legacy ; e.g. lynchings, church bombings, and Jim Crow segregation laws. To keep Southern as a qualifier of his witness to Jesus Christ is to drap the cross with the Stars and Bars. His identity trashes his testimony. With America is or is not a Christian nation is not important; whether America is just, humane, and compassionate with our own citizens all whom America sojourns with on earth today and into the future. As the apostle Paul encouraged his parishoners, America ought to be outdoing other nations in doing good.

Evolution may be a theory; however, it is a theory with significant and continually mounting evidence of its validity (yes, humans and chimpanzees share approximately 98.5% of their DNA).

Creationism is also a theory; however, it is a theory that has repeatedly disproved. When Clarence Darrow thoroughly embarrassed William Jennings Bryan in the Scopes trial in the '20s, this should have become a non-issue.

For those who find the serenity and peace they are seeking in Jesus, I say, good for you, enjoy it. However, to those who think we are a christian nation in any sense, I say, you are simply letting your religious beliefs run away with you. Distinguish religion from the broader aspects of life and especially citizenship. Citizenship means giving up rights to the whole, in order to be safe and free. You Christian evangelists out there, please give it up. We dont wanna hear it, we are finding our peace and serenity in our own ways and dont want your help. Your determined efforts to portray this nation as "christian" are really efforts to use our free institutions for free advertising for your particular religion. Shame on you for that. Perhaps god has a different plan for different people. Think of it that way, get humble (ever met a humble evangelist?) and keep your religion out of the public discourse. Secular government is American, religious government is the exact opposite. Thanks for reading.

Johno

People who are sound in their own religious or spiritual attitudes have no desire to spout about their religion, because they feel at peace with their actions over words, which are usually hot air.

I was surprised to read such a piece by a leading Baptist minister. At the time of the founding of our country, there is no doubt that many things were in place, such as, a predominant Christian population, a populace originating from Britain first, then other parts of Europe next hence the overwhelmingly white population. When our government was established, voting was for white males. Since then, it has changed to include African-American men and also women. There was a song in by the Mama's and the Papa's with a great line in it - there is nothing quite as sure as change. Our nation boasted and benefited from its willingness to embrace diversity from around the world. The obvious result of that some day will be a blend of U.S. citizense who not only draw their heritage from virtually every country on earth, but from every religion. While our founding values may have been Christian ones, there is no certainty that it will embrace all of them at some future time. Such is the nature of change. Since change is inevitable, it is wise to be open to it and prepared for it.

Evolution is STILL a "theory", it is not fact, period. In about 1982, approximately 76% of the American public wanted creationism taught alongside of evolution. Creationism should not be excluded simply because some other theory has since come along, evolution is still a theory. Those who cling to evolution are exercising a faith of their own. I do not use "humanism" as a label for all non-Christians as you have implied. Humanists are a group in and of themselves.

There are as many different religions as there are people. I think a person's actions are more defining than any religion. I think it is hilarious how people go to church on Sunday and they think that makes them religious, or holy, or whatever.
The real challenge is to implement some kind of morality into your everyday decision making, from moment to moment. To make the world a better place through your actions.

I haven't read all the other responses yet, to see if anyone has echoed my sentiments, but the distinction for me - a Christian raised as a Lutheran, if that matters - is that this country was intended to embrace ALL religions, and there was no ONE religion or denomination that was designated as the MAIN one.

You describe America as a nation of Christians, but that's a fairly general description. I consider myself a Christian, but not in any traditional, conservative sense. I don't take very kindly to those flamboyant, charismatic believers that feel it is their calling to push their joy and excitement down my throat, as if I'm somehow not fervent enough in my beliefs.

You know, when it comes to this public prayer thing, EVERYONE is free to pray as much as they want. SILENTLY! Hey, the Father can hear your thoughts, right? Why do I have to listen to them?

And when it comes to these demonstrative displays of joy, what is with the "arms in the air" thing, anyway?

Is this some sort of movement or dance step that we need to learn?

I'm happy for you that YOU'RE happy, but is it really necessary for you to go through all the gymnastics? Geez.......

If you were to meet me on the street, you would meet a man as kind and soft spoken as you are; a good man, father, husband, citizen. I have internalized my spirituality and feel no need for these additional outward gyrations and such.

That doesn't mean I don't believe.

It just means I'm not as spastic about it.

I don't see why some people are offended by evangelism. If somebody of a different religion tris to evangelize me, I am not offended. Why can't we just agree to disagree? Even if they told me I was going to turn into a big fat roach, they have the right to be wrong, and if I don't believe that it's true, then why should that offend me? All their statement serves to do is strengthen what I already believe, which is a good thing. Why are people afraid of hearing opposition if they believe they are already right? I'm glad I live in a country where people are free to tell me what they really think about my beliefs, even if I don't like it. And it is better to see things this way than to deny freedom of speech and use the cop-out phrase "shoving your beliefs down my throat" and labeling every thing as hate speech to the point where nobody wants to say anything. So smile and rejoice that we have freedoms that other nations don't have :)

When fundamentalists top forcing creationism into public schools, stop forcing the evangelical version of the Ten Commandments into public courthouses, and stop forcing the evangelical label "humanism" on people who don't believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, then I'll believe that they are merely exercising free speech.

To gain a proper (non-humanist) view of Jesus and what the Bible say's about him, read "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel, a former skeptic/atheist.

Read "A Christian Manifesto" by Francis Schaeffer and become educated about the falsehoods and negative impact of the Humanism movement on our country.

Contrary to many posts I have read, Christians like myself are not FORCING our faith on anyone. We, like all other Americans, have the right to free speech and we are merely exercising that right. I have yet to hear of anyone being "forced" into becoming a Christian.
Those people that want to silence Christians from speaking about their faith are advocating religious censorship.

The Christian movement is an 80 million member apocalyptic death cult. The fundamentalist that are driving the worlds religions will start a world war over their beliefs, because of their interpretation of their old bronze age books. The only thing that can be predicted about this coming war is that neither Yahweh, Allah, or Jesus will show up at the end. Why? Because they are mythological creations invented by religious fanatics.
What is amazing is how foolish people are, and that all this can take place with absolutely no viable proof that any god exist at all. The scientific evidence against the existence of any supernatural being is overwhelming. Yet the churches are full.
These superstitious fools are going to get a lot of people killed. If it was just Jewish, Christian, and Muslim religious fanatics that died it would be no big deal, but they usually insist everyone else dies too. That's part of that evangelical thing.
Humanity needs to wise up and have an adult discussion on reality. Humanity needs to reject myth and live in the real world because the supernatural world is nothing but myth.

The End of Faith - Sam Harris
Letter To A Christian Nation - Sam Harris
The God Delusion - Richard Dawkins
Breaking the Spell - Daniel Dennett

Read these important books, and be healed!

Being Christian is rather like being fat. No one can agree about when fat occurs and there is no boundary that makes one fat or not. Christians are even worse, in that there is probably no 2 who claim to be such that agree on what they are or what Christian means. They seem to all believe that choosing to believe some fellow named Jesus who came to be called the Annointed One (Christ) some two thousand years ago was some incarnation of GOD, and who attoned for the GODly error of creating Humans as sinful by allowing himself to be martyred to gain GOD's forgiveness for having made the error in the first place.
As you can see, it is all rather foolish, makes no rational sense at all, but seems to work. One suspects that is primarily because it let's you do just about anything and redeem yourself by reciting a little litany about believing Jesus is GOD. One further suspects that the true intent is that believing Jesus is GOD would in some way make one act properly with some control and not need forgiveness...oh well, so much for theory. I have yet to meet any Christians who would meet even the minimum criteria of Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, which appears to be one of the few actual spirtually teachings of Jesus to make it in to the good book. Most Christians seem to prefer the hoary writings of the Jewish bible to their own Good book. Most of those words are obviousl selected by men of the 5th century to provide political cover, from the men's writings of earlier years. Paul especially is an odd choice as he never met Jesus, was a prodsecuter of Jesus followers until he fell off his ride and hit his head, and seems to hate mankind in general. Then we have Peter and John who seem to be jealous old men who claim some relationship to Jesus. Their ramblings appear to have no spirtual content, but generally expond their personal piety...and of course their contempt for woman.

If America is becoming Christian; I suppose that accounts for the growing ignorance, arrogance, and agressiveness. Christians have ever been so insecure that the main defense of their religion is primarily forcing all others to convert or die. No one it seems will ever choose such a path based on observed benefits or apparent truth.

For all reading these messages, and impressed with the tenor of the article, I would suggest they return to the Post front page and read the article headlined:

"Fairfax City Council Supports Purchase of New Lamb Center Home"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/13/AR2006121301440.html

The Post is really pushing this religious BS. The end of the American Empire is truly upon us; it's back to Old World ignorance and superstition from now on, I guess...good bye Enlightenment, hello Dark Ages....

Justin:

"When you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, who love to stand and pray... so that others may see them.... But when you pray, go to your inner room, close the door, and pray to your Father in secret." (Matthew 6:5-6)

Dear Karen,

I'm especially happy that most true believers are "true believers", because hearing them tell it, without having Christ in their hearts, you can just imagine the additional mayhem they would be up to, besides tousing alter boys, burning people at the stake, and raping and pillaging, without their higher moral sense. I can attest that this is true; I rape and pillage every chance I get. Obviously I’m a secular humanist and a moral relativist. Not having Christ in my heart leaves me morally unencumbered, so no one expects anything from me other than raping and pillaging, which I will merrily continue until caught. What’s absolutely surprising is that I’ve never been arrested. God must be watching over me.

Of course, even with Christ in their hearts, throughout Christian history true believers had no problem doing absolutely frightfully delightful things to non-believers (thank god for the first commandment and Deuteronomy; truly inspired). It was just frowned upon to do those things to other Christians, unless they belonged to other denominations ……………, or they were witches.

Finally, there is one additional part of christian history I’d like to address. Jews have been accused (Paul, Mel Gibson) of killing Christ. Of course, jews have vehemently denied it, instead blaming it on the Romans who later converted to Christianity. However, being a member of the communist, jewish, atheist conspiracy of international bankers, I've decided to come clean, be truthful, and break with tradition. It's true. I admit it. We killed your lord (or at least our ancestors did). Unfortunately, I never to got to relish and revel in the original pounding of the nails and I hate being accused of something without the satisfaction of being guilty. Fortunately, Christ's second coming is coming soon (I hope), so I've got my hammer and nails ready. Then, once you all enter the rapture and leave the world to rest of us sinners, we can go on raping and pillaging with abandon, and we might even save our planet and our enlightened way of life.

It's obnoxious and arrogant to try to persuade others to abandon their beliefs for yours, but that's part of some religions and part of freedom. Thank God we live in a country where the worst thing religious minorities are routinely subjected to is verbal persuasion.

Justin:

"Religious beliefs should be totally private"

I am not religious, but I disagree. That's like saying people should only be happy in private.

Steve wrote: “Could someone please explain to me how Jesus was born to a virgin and how he died and then came back to life. This is a very difficult concept for me to understand.”

It’s like pulling a bunny out of hat, Steve. These are simply magical concepts.

Fortunately, the importance of
RELIGION IS IN DECLINE in the US
and in other nations.

Angus Reid polls on the importance of Religion in daily life in 2006 indicates:
63 percent in the USA in 2006 down from 83 percent in 1992
39 percent in Canada down from 61 percent in 1992
France down to 17 percent.
Great Britain down to 23 percent
Germany down to 24 percent
Spain down to 31 percent
Italy, down to 51 percent

The sooner Religion is removed from Government, institutions and laws, the better. Religious beliefs should be totally private and Religions should stop trying to impose their beliefs on others.

The GOOD NEWS is that Religious influence is on decline.

The BAD NEWS is that it is very strong in Muslim countries at 95% plus and is a major political influence.

Read Sam Harris: __Letter to a Christian Nation__ and __End of Faith__ for the truth about Religion and the dangers of Religion in politics.

Mizbinkley, thank you for coming to my defense regardless of where you stand on matters of faith. I would stand up for your right not to believe in God anyday. You are right, I never said that I chose to give up my free will. I used my free will, my rational thinking, my ability to read the Bible in three languages, my readings of other religions' sacred text and my debates and discussions with people of many different faith to come to the conclusion that there is a God, that Jesus is the son of God who died for my sins, and I CHOSE to receive him as my savior.
Thank you for pointing out that believing in God does not mean that we stop being rational and using our minds. Would anybody suggest that Francis Collins, MD, PhD and head of the Human Genome Program is an irrational person who checked out his brain at the door when he became a christian in his twenties?
Also, what I meant by condescension in my previouw post is when people call me girl, sweetheart etc. Just call me Karen, no need for these subtle putdowns. I did not call anybody boy, did I?
I would also like to add a point that never gets mentionned. Faith is also experential. We experience God and the work of the Holy Spirit in us. Delusion? Tell that to the man who recently told me that after years of IV drug and alcohol abuse and being shot twice, when he got down on his knees and asked Jesus to deliver him for all these temptations, he felt something being lifted off him and in 12 years has never again felt the desire to use drugs or drink or smoke. And his story is hardly unique. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of us deluded?
I respect the right of all to disagree but can't we be civil about it and not degenarate into name calling and belittling each other?

Mr. Mohler's essay is interesting and has a lot of truth in it. But the idea that the pervasiveness of Christmas celebration in the US proves the common Christian thread is shaky. As many people are probably aware, a celebration at about the winter solstice goes way back before Christ. Pagans in northern Eurpope celebrated this and their "Holly King." Christians began celebrating during Christmas to "blend in" with the raucus Roman celebrations, characterized by lots of eating and drinking, much as we do now. In the pagan, agricultural world, the shortest day of the year was a pretty siognificant event. It's a dark time of year so we celebrate, in part, with Christ. I use the time to commemorate the birth of Christ as many Christians do, but am under no illusion that it is solely about Christ. The party goes, way, way back. Merry Christmas! Happy Solstice!

Wow,

You're right. A thesis is often state at the beginning. The first words of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." This right was granted to the people before all others.

Justin:

As some have mentioned, Christmas is no longer just a religious holiday it is an American Holiday! In fact in is the biggest American Holiday of the year. More people have off on Christmas Day then any other day of the year. We celebrate that.

If you watch the movie "Scrooge" you'll see Scrooge is Scrooge because he closes himself off from all the invitations to join in the merry of people around him. There does not have to be Christ in everyones' Christmas for everyone to enjoy Christmas.

This was a 500-600 word document right? I didn't think it was his thesis.

"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."

"or affirm" These words of the oath of office of the president indicate an acceptance of those who do not acknowledge a higher being to be President. During this colonial period the meaning of an affirmation was denial of such a diety.

Over time, our nation has forgotten our roots not in religion, but to be free of religious oppression. So, atheism, the affirmation of pure rationality is seen only as the inherent affront to those who require this belief.

Those who answer only to God are too comfortable flying planes into buildings or initiating wars. The illusion of approval by a higher being eliminates the need for considering the costs, the economic, moral and historical costs of such a tragic action.

Dr. Mohler is to be commended for stepping out into the minefield of religion and politics. His central premise that America is NOT a Christian nation but a nation whose people are mainly Christians is correct.

The big problem here is that a lot of people of his denomination disagree. Instead of writing columns for the Washington Post, he should be preaching this from the pulpit, and putting pressure on the rest of the S. Baptist clergy do the same.

I find that leaders of fundamentalist denominations say one thing to non-fundamentalists but make little or no attempt to change their worshiper's attitudes. I was raised in a Baptist church full of bigots. The denomination was adamant that it wasn't racist, but I never heard a single sermon condemning racism or scolding the members for their bigoted beliefs (which were based on "scripture").

What is a Christian nation or nation of Christians? Are these people that just think they are Christians or pose as Christians or "ACT" like Christians. Americans have done exceptionally well marketing themselves as Christians. For that, I say bravo!

I wonder if the faith and worldview and Christian identification is based on anything else than belief in the Bible.

The Bible was a book written by men. The values and message that Christ appears to teach us, as a gift to humankind, do not appear to be practiced by Christian Americans. Neither in their daily lives, in public manifestations of culture, nor in public policy at home and abroad, do Christian values appear to be recognized and practiced.

It's as if Christians pick and choose from Christ's teachings and have come up with those values which support a primarily individualistic and capitalist system. Although our nation has been very successful, it appears we do have our own version of Christianity.

Alex: I am not trying to be nice. I am trying to tell the truth.

Christianity is a hoax because its Jesus is not the real Jesus. Its Jesus was invented by Paul of Tarsus out of his own imagination; it was elaborated upon by Mark and the other Gospel writers in order to make the revolutionary Zealot Jesus out to be a pacifistic patsy so the Romans would not bother the Christians in Rome and elsewhere. Only the followers of Jesus led by his brother James of Jerusalem knew the real Jesus. He did not die to save you. He died as a political rebel vs. Rome.

Forget about nice. Stick with the historic truth. Christians are afraid of the truth.

Alex:

Your attitude that we shouldn't challenge people's deeply held beliefs (you objected to Candid calling Christianity a 'hoax') is one of the major problems we have when discussing religion and its impact on society. Many people such as yourself want to give religious claims a pass, no matter how ridiculous or poorly supported. Religion should be held to the same standard as all other ideas; it should be approached skeptically and analytically. Many religious claims are ludicrous, and they should be given no more respect than any other quackery. Open and honest criticism is the only antidote to the fundamentalism that continues to fester in American society.

American is not a Christian nation, you are correct. Then why do evangelical Christians want to force their beliefs on the rest of us? Just a few generations ago, fundamentalists in the South said that the Bible supported slavery and people with my skin color and ethnic background were chattel. Today, fundamentalists say God wants a war in Iraq, and now that 4,000 young Americans and 100,000 Iraqis have died, you still support your President.

Why don't you foolish people leave the real Americans alone?

The Christmas story as presented by U.S. news media is 95 percent commercial (how much are we buying, and is it more or less than last year), 4 percent conflict (someone wants government to recognize Kwanzaa or Chanukah), and 1 percent religious (Christmas Eve stories about Midnight Mass). Too many people seem to want to put a religious veneer on their Christmas shopping sprees. It would solve a lot of problems if the U.S. Conference of Bishops, evangelicals, and mainstream Protestant denominations simply declared that Christmas is for commerce and Easter is for Christ.

To Anonymous:

You said "You illustrate why secular people should never try to use the Bible to justify anything. You take MY Lord's words out of context. He was speaking of taxes. And yet you want to apply it all thought, words and deeds. Perhaps you should go back and read the entire account."

And perhaps you can tell me where our mutual Lord and Savior advocated a theocratic state? And while you are at it, perhaps you can tell me why throughout Christian history, the Church and the state are almost always refered to as being separate entities?

To Anonymous:

You said "You illustrate why secular people should never try to use the Bible to justify anything. You take MY Lord's words out of context. He was speaking of taxes. And yet you want to apply it all thought, words and deeds. Perhaps you should go back and read the entire account."

And perhaps you can tell me where our mutual Lord and Savior advocated a theocratic state? And while you are at it, perhaps you can tell me why throughout Christian history, the Church and the state are almost always refered to as being separate entities?

I appreciate the op ed’s point that the framers of the constitution did not intend to have a government-sponsored religion. I remember walking out of a church a year ago when the preacher asserted, among other wrong things, that the United States is a “Christian” nation from its founding. There is simply no historical fact to back such an assertion.

Nor is there any biblical evidence that one must be politically conservative to be a Christian. Even biblical evidence cited by conservative Christians regarding abortion is shaky. Jesus Christ did not run for public office. I wish some evangelicals will get over it. Using governmental institutions for evangelization is not biblical.

The op ed could have gone further. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause were written by former colonist with a very recent history of religious persecution, even as Christans, in England. For example, Google “Bloody Mary”. (No, I am not referring to the drink.)
Justice O'Connor, concurring in McCreary said it best: “I join in the Court's opinion. The First Amendment expresses our Nation's fundamental commitment to religious liberty by means of two provisions--one protecting the free exercise of religion, the other barring establishment of religion. They were written by the descendents of people who had come to this land precisely so that they could practice their religion freely.
….

Reasonable minds can disagree about how to apply the Religion Clauses in a given case. But the goal of the Clauses is clear: to carry out the Founders' plan of preserving religious liberty to the fullest extent possible in a pluralistic society. By enforcing the Clauses, we have kept religion a matter for the individual conscience, not for the prosecutor or bureaucrat. At a time when we see around the world the violent consequences of the assumption of religious authority by government, Americans may count themselves fortunate: Our regard for constitutional boundaries has protected us from similar travails, while allowing private religious exercise to flourish. … Those who would renegotiate the boundaries between church and state must therefore answer a difficult question: Why would we trade a system that has served us so well for one that has served others so poorly?” (Emphasis added)

When one group of people refuses to respect the right of others to believe differently from them and try to use governmental institutions to inflict their beliefs upon others, we are in for trouble.

"Why does anyone care what religious beliefs someone else holds?"

If the words of Jesus of Nazareth are indeed true and if salvation is only found through repentance from sin and faith in this crucified and resurrected Messiah, then the personal beliefs of others is a matter of heaven and hell. Not caring about the beliefs of others is a demonstration of a lack of genuine love for other persons.

And a Happy New Year!

Merry Christmas?

EDWIN writes: "I believe that if Jesus' words, symbolism, mysticism, et cetera, has awakened people's hearts, like Karen & MIZBLINKEY, then all credit should go him."

I never said "Jesus' words, symbolism, mysticism, et cetera, has awakened [my] heart."

And I wouldn't, because I'm an atheist.

condescending?

ouch!

You say you "believe that man is born selfish and corrupt and has to learn to be otherwise."

all i said was that it is possible to be a good person without embracing anyone's specific religion, or any religion at all, for that matter. Where you learn it is beside the point. If religion works for you, hey, you go girl.

The Evangelical Right in this country have done a masterful job in not only getting its agenda onto the table, but being able to shape the agenda/national discussion.

This column is always a testiment to that, and not much else.

The founding principles of this country are clear, but Evangelicals have been sucessful by continually raising claim to "grey areas", so that the debate becomes not one based on fact, but of "nuance" or "intent".

I wish more people would be willing to recognize this for what it simply is, but alas no.

One thinks of the recent Intelligent Design Court case, decided by a Bush appointed, Evangelical Judge who received death threats from his brethern after his decision. These are the type of people that want to inject these concepts (see this article) into the national discourse.

We are not served well by these discussions.

Karen,

relax. I am w/ you. I might disagree w/ your religion, but I agree w/ your world view.

It is more like a nation of Hypocrites headed by the Born-Again, Faith-Based, Pro-Life Lying Serial Killer-in-Chief. They seek the God votes, but on Election day the VP of Torture is out shooting God's defenseless innocent creatures for pleasure. Would Jesus carry a loaded firearm next to the Bible? The regressive right religious Frauds don't want to murder cells, but fully support the illegal invasion and murder of hundreds of thousands of people and have done nothing with Darfur or the Congo. Religion for most people is just another way to gain acceptance in society. Many say they are religious, but very few truly are. Does anyone truly believe a God would forgive a Serial Killer or Mass Murderer? If God created humans, then God screwed up, Big Time.

EDWIN writes: "My only suggestion was that she does not leave logic behind while God 'guides' her."

Some of the world's greatest scientists (very much empirical and logical people) also consider themselves to be people of faith.

It's a huge mistake to assume that a religious person can't be cerebreal or will necessarily be "driven astray" by their faith.

Oh, and since you asked, I'm not convinced that free will is what separates us from the orangutans. We are VERY closely related to the great apes. But I'm by no means an expert on orangutan thinking and behavior. Is free will and important characteristic of humans? I say yes.

Gary Roth,

What about Buddha & Lao Tzu? They came way before JC & they seemed to have a grip on "understanding the very essence of life". They also showed themselves to be in an "intimate relationship with that power which created and holds the universe together, and which is drawing it toward its conclusion." Gary, I know YOU believe in Jesus, & I know YOU believe that "these ideas are the only solid basis for the salvation of our society and our planet", but that doesn't mean that the guys who came before Jesus, Buddha & Lao Tzu for the purpose of this analogy, did not have all the answers light years before he did. The one thing that separates Jesus from these two other humans is the myth, yes I said it, the myth, that JC resurrected on the 3rd day, which in itself is an act that no other prophet has been able to follow. I believe that if Jesus' words, symbolism, mysticism, et cetera, has awakened people's hearts, like Karen & MIZBLINKEY, then all credit should go him. Just remember that there are others that came before & after him that also seemed to have a connection w/ the universe. Respecting those others, as well as JC, is the key.

Sure, some "plausibility structures that made the world sensible to Americans" were biblical.

Which ones? Biblical injunctions to exterminate tribes that believed in other gods helped justify genocide of native Americans. Biblical approval of slavery was heartening for white southern landowners. The oft-repeated biblical approval of wars, massacres of enemies, and violent domination of all within reach is a congruent backdrop for the US's extremely violent history right up to the present. It's no accident that the current disastrously bellicose US foreign policy was voted for, and is led by, Christian biblical literalists.

The ten commandments? The ones commanding parental respect and condemning murder, theft and adultery are universal. The one that forbids worship of other gods spawns bigotry. Obeying the one that forbids envy of others' goods might make the country more livable but it would wreck the economy. No, the ten commandments are not the basis of anything.

How about injunctions in the Christian bible to sell you possessions and give to the poor? To turn the other cheek? To make peace? To be meek? Not for the US, those teachings of the Christian bible.

A nation largely of Christians? Perhaps, but Christians of a particular sort. Let's hope for lots and lots of non-Christian immigrants! Say, 50 million Buddhists?

"There are a lot of thing that should be given credit to the determination of Christians.

1)Abolition of Slavery"

Anyone else notice the irony that the original work is by a SOUTHERN Baptist- a church that broke from the main body of baptists because it believed the bible justified slavery and rejected the abolishonist movement that was growing in the church (same reason we have the UNITED Methodist Church today, they got back together after the Civil War ended)? I also find it ironic that many modern Southern Baptists also try to claim credit for Christianity for abolition (not saying it's happening here, just that I've noted it). Sounds like an unrelated sidetrack, but it gets to an important point about the nature of religion, what constitutes American Christianity, and how politics affects it and vice versa. Religion will always affect how you vote and what you want in your leaders, but your personal politics can also turn around and shape your religion (as is evidenc both left and right in the fights going on in the Episcopal and Southern Baptist churches today). The more politics touches religion, the more its inherent corruption will corrupt your faith. This is one of the main reasons why the founders wanted to keep the two as far away from each other as reasonably possible.

Edwin: I am a christian but that does not mean that I support this administration (far from it) or that I voted for Bush (no way), for all the reasons you listed and more. And to the condescending C Trentelman: I fully realize that many christians do not behave as such and many non christians behave admirably. By the way, your tone makes it obvious that maybe you are not managing so nicely...
Religion or faith are not what causes division, it is what people make of them, which goes back to my point about human nature. Nothing in Christ's teachings would have in any way justified the crusades, or the inquisition etc. I may be naive but based on my own observations, people who truly embrace the teachings of Christ are not looking for division or for excluding people but have a spirit of service and love (think World Vision, usually the first at the scene of any disaster anywhere). But there are those who "use" christianity to get to their own goals (think white supremacist for example).
I do not believe as Rousseau says that man is born good and society corrupts him. I believe that man is born selfish and corrupt and has to learn to be otherwise. I believe that the best way to develop a spirit of service and love is to be filled with the Holy Spirit. That is My belief, not intended to be imposed on anybody else. Just look at this forum and all the venom that gets poured out time and time again and tell me if you see much proof of people's kindness and love for one another. I rarely participate because of it. Are we only to be kind to the people who think like us and demonize all the rest? Christians are accused of doing this time and time again, but I am sorry to say that most of the demonizing comes from the atheist/agnostic group and is thrown at anybody who dare to express strong faith in God, specifically the Christian variety. This was actually brought up by another participant in a Q&A session with Sally Quinn yesterday.
I am always willing to discuss and debate. My faith was reached through comparative study of religions, studying, asking and debating. But I am not interested if I am immediately tagged as silly or a looser or close minded because I am a christian.

EDWIN writes "Karen stated that her free will had taken her nowhere & that's why she doesn't want it."

I don't see where she said that. KAREN, would you care to address?

Gary Roth,

I do not want to take Dr. Mohler, J. to task for evangelizing. That is what the Gospel says he should do.

But there are those of us who do not want to be bothered. It is his right to share his ideas, I would not fault him for that. But there are many of us who do not believe as he does, do not share your belief that Jesus is the most important thinker in history.

I remember learning that talking politics, money and faith were not always considered polite. Today many people would not think it proper for me to explain why I think Nietzsche repudiated a lot of Christian doctrine because there is not text or sacred scripture mandating that I do this. I am just rude in that case. But it is perfectly alright to evangelize because it is in the New Testament.

I only ask that evangelizers think about how they come across to those of us not brought up to think and act as they do and whose views (my views) are not of the "mainstream" or represented by an organized church. Unsolicited views about faith are a bit of an imposition, don't you think? After all, what is more personal than faith?

Gary Roth,

My point about evangelism is that all religious belief is subjective. No one's beliefs qualify as "good news" in the objective sense. Certainly the believer may equate his or her belief with a cure for cancer. But for someone else, the believer's "good news" might feel like cancer, or at least like a bad cold. And if that sounds extreme, remember that just about every religion has a history of enormous good AND enormous evil committed by people acting in the religion's name.

The good "Reverend" makes another attempt by evangelicals to mainstream their extreme and hypocritical view of Christianity and is given space by The Washington Post to do so.

While many Americans do identify themselves as Christians, the evangelical right has hijacked the term in an attempt to make their numbers appear far more significant than they are in fact. Very few literate Americans actually believe that outer space is not a vacuum, but celestial water (Genesis 1:6-98); that the universe is only 6,000 years old; that pi is equal to exactly 3 (1 Kings 23); that sea level rose 30,000 feet (Genesis 7:19)(Where did all the water go? How did jaguars and polar bears get to the ark? Why didn't all the fish die with the change in salinity?). The examples would fill a book as large as... well nearly as large as the Bible.

A literal reading of scriptures is not faith in God but faith in man. All books of the Bible were written by men, selected by men, translated by men, and interpreted by men. Most people, including most Christians, recognize this basic fact.

Evangelicals, however, claim it is all literal truth. I say claim because none, repeat none, practice their faith as if it were literally true. I've yet to even hear of an evangelical who eats kosher or practices burnt offerings in accordance with Leviticus. Yet when it comes to preaching hate, the Old Testament is parsed to agree with the prejudice of the day.

Even evangelical prejudice is hypocritical - or at the very least, self-defeating. Why is it that whichever self-appointed "minister" preaches the loudest against homosexuality is eventually forced out of the closet?

Why such prominence in this country? Heavy corporate funding. Opposition to stem cell research is funded by pharmaceutical interests and preached on "moral" grounds. Anti-gambling legislation is promoted on moral grounds and funded by casinos across the state line.

Corporations are not idiots. They are well aware that people who will believe anything that is shouted at them by a man waving a book, can be co-opted into doing anything that big business wants.

In short, stop claiming ownership of the "Christian" mantle. You give us all a bad name.

MIZBINKEY,
Karen stated that her free will had taken her nowhere & that's why she doesn't want it. I was EZ on her. I just pointed out to her that that is a danger zone. It's lala land if you will. Free will is what separates it from the orangutans Blinkey. You would agree to that, wouldn;t you? Either way, on Karen's defense, she explained herself a little more on her rebuttal. She does seem to care & if you notice, I did pay respect to her caring for the same issues I care about. Again, your argument is that she chose God w/ her free will. No problem. My only suggestion was that she does not leave logic behind while God "guides" her.

Candide

Calling someones deeply held belief a "hoax" ?
Not nice at all. Kinda sad we have these kinds of statements.

It is good to see an "evangelical" who acknowledges that this is not a "Christian nation." It is somewhat true that the founders of the nation held a "Christian" worldview, since there was really no competing worldview. Yet, even at that, a number of them were Deists, not Christians - believing that there is a God of some description, but not particularly believing in Jesus. Our legal system, contrary to the presently popular revisionism, was not founded upon Christian principles (what, no Jubilee?! No communal society?!), but primarily upon English law, which valued property above people, and served mostly to protect the landed aristocracy. Neither property rights nor protection of the concerns of the wealthy are "biblical" principles. So it is a stretch to say that we are, in any sense, a "Christian" nation.

I would also question the idea that we are a nation of Christians. Even while most Americans (over 80%) claim a belief in God, and most of those claim to be Christians, the content of that belief is generally less than Christian. As a small and rather personal example, I worked with several school systems for a number of years, and found only a very few children had any idea of what the Lord's Prayer said; less than half of them could tell me five of the Ten Commandments; a few more understood that Christmas had something to do with Jesus. For the majority of Americans, Christmas has little to do with the celebration of Jesus' birth (just listen to the commercials - even Delilah refers to it, not in reference to Jesus, but as a "family holiday!". Again, and contrary to Mr. Dobson and his crowd, the Bible isn't very strong on "family values.").

On the other hand, I have noted that many of the responses to the article take Mr. Mohler to task for his desire to evangleize. "Evangelism" comes from a word meaning, "good news." For those who believe in Jesus, the call to witness to that "good news" is a biblical mandate, just as a doctor who found a cure for cancer would be compelled to share that "good news" with others. That it is not always presented that way is not the fault of the Gospel. It certainly is an attempt to change a person's mind - anyone would believe that it would be beneficial to change a person's mind, for instance, who was being self-destructive, or destructive of others. We might also be eager to share good news that was of help to someone. That is the task of evangleism.

To say that religion should not engage in evangelism, is to say that it should not place itself in the marketplace of ideas. Businesses evanglelize. Political parties evangelize. Everyone who shares an idea does so with the purpose of evangelism - that wish to share it, to get others to understand and believe in it.

I believe that Jesus was the most important thinker in history. His ideas are still radical, relevant, and challenging in our time. I believe that they are the only hope for our world, the only foundation upon which peace and hope can be built. I believe that he understood the very essence of life in a way that few others have. I believe that he showed himself to be in an intimate relationship with that power which created and holds the universe together, and which is drawing it toward its conclusion. There are many other things that I believe about Jesus, but because I believe that these ideas are the only solid basis for the salvation of our society and our planet, and I believe in the "good news" that salvation is possible, I believe that is something that I am mandated to share.

I am a graduate of the Seminary where Al Mohler is now president. His presidency represents a fundamentalist majority of Southern Baptists. Fundamentalism is a reaction to what was perceived as an attack on Christianity by those who used scientific criticism to examine the truth of the Bible at the end of the 19th century.
This article represents the foundational belief that Christianity still needs to be defended against assault. It defends by provoking attacks. These attacks give comfort and validation to those who still need to defend their faith.
I prefer a nondefensive exchange of ideas in the free marketplace where religious liberty protects the right of all to speak,listen and choose.

hey karen,

I think the point is not that people are or are not making bad choices, it is that being Christian will not necessarily change those choices -- I know plenty to make the wrong kind of choices, and I know plenty of non-christians who make the right kind of choices.

It is a question of behaving properly from whatever internal moral compass steers you that way -- if being a so-called "Christian" works for you, hey lady, great, but don't say Christianity is a requirement. Some of us manage very nicely while never cracking a bible.

A Christian nation: this means that citizenship requires Christian faith or at least affiliation. This has not been true in America since 1789.

I tremble when I think about the fact that Christianity is the biggest religious hoax around. The real Jesus was an apocalyptic Jew who supported Zealot revolution and was killed for it. He thought God would have him and Israel; God did not. To believe in Jesus as a saviour goes against what the earliest Jewish-cCristians in Jerusalem believed, those who knew Jesus best.

No, thank God, America is not a Christian nation.

Brother James:

I can appreciate thanking God for being a Baptist minister, however. One must error on the side of safety. How sure are you that's God, ( http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul ) and not the Devil you're thanking. You know what you have bet on that, assuming you actually believe in God.

Isn't that awful? I have to assume you're telling the truth when you say you believe in God. Are you? Have you done as Jesus demanded of the rich man, "sell all your earthly posessions and give to the poor?" Lucky you, you're not rich? The ministry is just another profession like fireman, policeman, etc?

Now you're talking & making sense Karen. But still, why do you need to hold on to religion to achieve all those things you listed? Religion creates division among people. And BTW, I do agree w/ you that we ought to be feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, rescuing the addicted, opening our homes to the homeless, avoiding unjust wars, treating others as we would like to be treated, & caring for the environment. Again, I couldn't agree w/ you more. However, it is not up to God to do anything. He/She already blessed w/ a pulse & a brain. Now, it is up to us humans here on earth to make changes. He/She is not magically going to appear & control our actions. We need to eradicate the problem ourselves. Now you take a look around you: we are in the middle of a war/crusade b/c of religion. Furthermore, I don't see the Bush administration doing anything to combat the above mentioned issues, do you? BTW, I am glad you responded. It shows that you're open to debate these issues, & that's a start.

Just a note regarding menorahs, in response to an earlier reply. A menorah was used in the Temple and was/is a religious symbol. However, what is lit during Chanukah is technically not a menorah but a Chanukiah, which has 9 branches, as opposed to the menorah used in the Temple that had 7. The Chanukiah, as it is particular to the celebration of Chanukah, is not considered, to my recollection, to be a religious symbol. Chanukah is not inherently a religious holiday within Judaism. It celebrates the military victory of the Macabees. Most people use the term menorah when they are referring to a Chanukiah, but they are not actually the same thing. At least that is what I remember from my years of Jewish day school.

Just keep repeating...
It's not my birthday.
It's not my birthday.
It's not my birthday.
It's Jesus's birthday.

So let those who believe also celebrate.
You do not have to be Christian in order to be a loyal dedicated American citizen. Christianity is a covenant with God, and folks around the world have different covenants with God.

Excellent post, Andy!

Hannah, I just stumbled across this article:
http://info.phys.unm.edu/~caves/commentary/012.html

The article states, among other things: "Christmas is a national holiday partly because it is a major religious holiday of the country's dominant religion, but that certainly can't be the whole story, because Easter, which is arguably a more important religious holiday, is not a national holiday. You don't have to look far to find the rest of the story. Christmas became a national holiday because it involved the exchange of gifts, which is now by far the biggest part of the celebration."

I am personally an athiest, but I very much appreciate Mr. Mohlers article. We are a nation that accepts all faiths or none at all. Mohler's point about the coutry being founded by Christians is a matter of historical fact, not interpretation. However, they also understood the danger in creating a theocracy. It is for this reason that we have a secular government. We are united in our political ideas and while I do not share the Christian belief or any other, I am proud to call those who do my fellow Americans.

Does ANYONE want to discuss the role of consumerism? I just take issue with Mohler's assertion that we're a Christian nation when it's CLEAR that for the majority of Americans, Christian or not, it's all about the gifts.

They should call it Giftmas.

And I am a Christian, a liberal one....UCC. To me, it's a religious holiday. Gifts are not the point.

OK, here is the one aspect of all religions that is the most comical & sinister at the same time, the after-life. All religious fanatics claim that they belong in the next world. If that is so, why not just get there faster. I propose a mass suicide. Obviously only for the purpose of you guys getting to your final destination faster. I say those of us who are concerned about the deterioration of our planet, education for poor inner city folks, & getting along w/ the rest of humans-regardless of race & creed, should be left here b/c we are from this world & not the ficticious one inside your heads! Any logical responses are welcome. Any Mickey Mouse responses are not.

I am so very pleased to hear a prominent Evangelical refute the notion that this nation is a Christian nation. This notion has done a great dis-service to our international image so I'm very delighted to hear that he made this point clearly in the article. My primary critique of the author's statements is that the principles of our nation are based on Christian and Biblical principles. While it was an influence, our government of representation is not Biblical for that is not mentioned in there anywhere. The Bill of Rights and Constitution aren't overtly Christian or Biblical either, nor is the Declaration of Independence, 3 branches of gov't, etc. Many of these ideas either came from earlier governments (such as the Romans/Greeks), free thinkers and others. Thus to me, this nation was founded on good principles, not overtly Biblical or Christian ones.

Edwin, I am not selling myself short. Look around you and see the state of human nature and the choices that people are making with their free will. Are we all feeding the hungry, clothing the poor, rescuing the addicted? Are we opening our homes to the homeless? Are we avoiding unjust wars? Are we treating others as we would like to be treated? Are we caring for the environment? Or are we mainly preoccupied with our own needs, desires and pursuit of happiness? Some of us do some of the former, most of are busy with the latter. This is not about me having poor self esteem, this is about me having lived through war and much other tribulations and recognizing that left to their own devices, people are neither good nor kind nor selfless. It is something that we have to learn and desire.

Well, this would be a more powerful statement coming from a different source, to tell you the truth. Mohler heads an institution now known for refusing to ordain women to ministry and inerrancy of scripture. Southern Seminary was not always this way. I find his musings here overly simplistic at best, and rather disingenuous at worst--especially ignoring the vast, vast discrepancies among Christians in this country, even among those who (like myself) call themselves Baptists.

Whoever thinks that the majority of the country celebrating Xmas makes us a nation of Christians is a fool. The fact that Xmas to most people has nothing to do with the birth of ol' jesus is the key factor.

Who doesn't appreciate nice smelling trees, gift giving, a fat guy in a red suit, and people being nice to each other for a couple weeks. Let's not even mention the free days off of work!

If Yom Kippur or Ramadan were as much fun as Christmas, you can sure as hell bet the majority of Americans would do that, too!!

Christians crack me up...what fuzzy pink bunnies, chocolate eggs, jellybeans, mistletoe, candy canes, and fat guys in red suits has to do with ol' jesus I will never know.

I wonder what kind of "eccentric" Dr. Mohler thinks Ben Franklin actually was. Interesting choice of words. Why do I feel like I am reading the words of Norman Vincent Peale? Soon he will be telling us that Christianity is "the vital center" in the United States.

Edwin, ease up on the Karens of the world.

Karen wrote: "faith in God means nothing if it is imposed rather then chosen." The Karens do not see God & Jesus as "puppet masters." They use their free will and reason to CHOOSE God.

I'd like to think most believers are Karens.

And I must say, I for one prefer the Karens of the world to the smug condescension of the Edwins.

A majority of Americans do identify themselves as Christians. But so what? Many who speak on this issue advance arguments without evidence to reject/marginalize mostly non-European immigrant influence and entitlement. So what if most Americans are Christians? That fact does not entitle Christian Americans anything more than what similarly situated people of non-Christian convictions are entilted to.

Mark Twain said, "This a Christian country. Why, so is hell. Inasmuch as 'straight is the way and narrow is the gate, and few--few--are they that enter in thereat' has had the natural effect of making hell the only really prominent Christian community in any of the worlds; but we don't brag of this and certainly it is not proper to brag and boast that America is a Christian country when we all know that certainly five-sixths of our population could not enter in at the narrow gate."

Mike wrote:

A menorah, on the other hand, IS a religous symbol, because it originates with a Scriptural event and can never be separated from that event. I know the ADL might not like that, but that's the way it is.

Just to clarify, Hanukkah is not a Scriptural event. It is not in Torah. Hanukkah is considered a minor holiday in the Jewish cycle for that reason. It was an important historical event, though, we all agree on that.

PS to Marta: TURN YOUR CAPS LOCK OFF!!

Imagine you are a first century Christian, and your Roman judge asks you to perform a small obesience to Caesar to affirm your loyalty to the Roman nation. How is that different from affirming that America is a Christian nation?

Of course, one might say that Iraq was a project of "democratic evangelism" after all. Though I do recall a certain American president saying that he was called by God to attack Iraq. That's not my God.

To Karen, & I quote, "we know that on our own, left to our own choices, devices and human powers, we could never "earn" our way to heaven or "deserve" salvation."
Sweeteheart, you're selling yourself short. Exercise your thinking muscle & you will be OK. I promise. God & Jesus are not puppet masters. That's why you have free will/reason. It's God gift to you Karen. Trying using it.

So what?

If you ask me, Dr. Mohler, Jr. ought to be asking himself why so Christian a nation launches unnecessary and dishonest wars that kill thousands of innocents yet is, as Chesterton put it, "a nation with the soul of a church." To me, that is far more important than our ideological or philosophical identification because it tells us who and what we actually are.

We are what we do and not what we think we are. If you look at what we are doing in Iraq I think that will tell you plenty. Christian nation or no, we ought to be ashamed of all the terrible things we are doing. And in whose name has all of this murder been committed?

J-P, you're right that concern over another's beliefs doesn't have to be sinister. And you're right that most evangelists see themselves as trying to bring happiness to other people.

Still, evangelism is a sore point with me for a number of reasons. Evangelism says that only the evangelist's religion can offer happiness, and that sounds incredibly arrogant even when that isn't the evangelist's intention. Evangelism doesn't consider the possibility that the path to happiness may be different for each person. Evangelism equates all other beliefs with alcoholism or some other thing from which people need to be rescued. As K Achilli said, religion is a very personal thing, with very strong connections to a person's sense of self. So evangelism denies the person's individuality.

And personally, I perceive evangelism as an attempt to change me to meet someone else's expectations, to get me to deny who I am in order to please someone else.

And Tom, I question why any religion has to have evangelism as a fundamental part of its doctrine.

There may be no American section in Heaven, but I hope there's an Odd Fellows section so I can play poker.

Yeah. This is a huge distinction, and I probably couldn't have come up with it on my own if it were not for your amazingly obvious piece.

To Nate and the many others who have expressed the same thoughts re: "the saved" believing themselves superior and creating a two class system: I think I speak on behalf of most of those who consider themselves born again christians and thus "saved", NO we absolutely do not believe ourselves superior or better than anybody else. The reason we put our faith in Jesus and turn to Him for our salvation is specifically because we know that on our own, left to our own choices, devices and human powers, we could never "earn" our way to heaven or "deserve" salvation. We believe that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone and not based on any merit or being special in any way. We do not believe that we are better than anybody else or more deserving than anybody else. On the contrary, as we study the Bible we are more and more humbled into relying completly on Jesus for our salvation. Does that sound like we are creating a two class system or is it that we recognize our limitations and reach out to God to lift us up?
Why do we share our faith with others? If you found the cure for cancer, would you keept it to yourself? Having said that, I do not impose my convictions on anybody else. I respect the right of all to believe or not. I do not believe that America is or should be a "christian nation" because of my respect for the free choice of all, because Jesus told us that his kingdom is not of this world and because above all else, faith in God means nothing if it is imposed rather then chosen.
I say all this not as a religious nut but as a highly educated person who works in scientific research, speaks several languages and has friends of all faith. I mention this not out of pride but only because I am tired of being told that only uneducated, superstitious fools still believe in God.

To the "anonymous", or scared Christian, posting for Robert Brown:

"Mithraism and Judaism merged and became Christianity. Jesus, son of the Hebrew sky God, and Mithras, son of Ormuzd are both the same myth. The rituals of Christianity coincide with the earlier rituals of Mithraism, including the Eucharist and the Communion in great detail. The language used by Mithraism was the language used by Christians. St Paul as the first "Christian" bears much of the responsibility for merging the two in his preaching and teaching, and also comes from Tarsus, a major Mithraist center.
The idea of a sacrificed saviour is Mithraist, so is the symbolism of bulls, rams, sheep, the blood of a transformed saviour washing away sins and granting eternal life, the 7 sacraments, the banishing of an evil host from heaven, apocalyptic end of time when God/Ormuzd sends the wicked to hell and establishes peace. Roman Emperors, Mithraist then Christian, mixed the rituals and laws of both religions into one. Emperor Constantine established 25th of Dec, the birthdate of Mithras, to be the birthdate of Jesus too. The principal day of worship of the Jews, The Sabbath, was replaced by the Mithraistic Sun Day as the Christian holy day. The Catholic Church, based in Rome and founded on top of the most venerated Mithraist temple, wiped out all competing son-of-god religions within the Roman Empire, giving us modern literalist Christianity."

Merry Mithras to you & your pagan followers

PS: James, I salute you & I respect for I believe you are a true Christian.

If I were to commit a crime and then say I am acting in the name of a white, hipple looking man in the sky, whom always has been and always will be, whom is responsible for all my trumphs and failures, people would say I'm insane and that what I'm saying is absurd. Why is it that sheer absurdity gets a pass when all other matters in society are governed by reason?

Lest ye forget, the doctrine of rule by divine right was a tory favorite. For patriots, political power comes from the consent of the governed, not god. I see in the call to make us over as a "christian Nation" an unfortunate nostalgia for a doctrine once and for all discredited on our soil.

Celebrating Christmas and being Christian are not synomous. I was raised in a Christian faith, but have rejected Christianity as unhistorical and irrelevant to my life. Just because I am now agnostic does not mean that I do not share some of the same values as Christians, nor do I eschew traditional celebrations that were part of my upbringing. I celebrate Christmas and Easter because I enjoy the traditional festivities. The religious significance is irrelevant to me.

I think ardent believers mistake nominal adherence to a creed for their own devotion. The vast majority of Americans probably claim Christianity as their faith, but their core beliefs and activities have little to do with what Christianity or the Bible preach. Just because someone puts up a Christmas tree or has an Easter egg hunt doesn't mean that they are any more religious than their European counterparts who retain a Christian culture with a secular soul.

If all believers are going to the kingdom
of heaven forever, what was the point of their
being on earth in the first place? Why
couldn't god just create
a bunch of good people to keep him company
in heaven?

Christianity is B.S., through and through, as
is every other religion. Sorry guys...I know
the koolaid tastes good.

ROBERT B.

You illustrate why secular people should never try to use the Bible to justify anything. You take MY Lord's words out of context. He was speaking of taxes. And yet you want to apply it all thought, words and deeds. Perhaps you should go back and read the entire account.

Let me state that Christ was not born on December 25. Not even in the month of December. His birth corresponds to the Jewish festival of Tabernacles, Booths, or Succot. His birth corresponds to God in a temporary house, or body. The Festival of Succot is in the September time-frame.

The Bible also does not stress to celebrate His birth. It stresses to celebrate His death, burial, and resurrection...daily.

So the Christmas celebration is a pagan celebration. You all are fighting over nothing.

Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

In case the Words Separation of church and state were not clear enough, Our founding fathers were deists. Whether our nation is overwhelmingly Christian or not is inconsequential. This is a constitutional republic, created were freedom and individual rights are paramount. NO GROUP RIGHT EXIST whether a majority or not. As Jefferson put regarding separation of church and state it in his biography:
"...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, 'Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,' which was rejected 'By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.'"
This article is the typical refrain from the religious mindset which squashes indivuall rights to promote, in my view the disingenuous, agenda of the right. Just as the left uses democracy and majority rule, subjugating individual rights, to push forth their socialistic agenda. As far as religious symbols go as long as they are on private property, if they offend anyone too damn bad. Mr. Mohler. may want "every American would come to the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ" Reason and persuasion as Jefferson put it is the only acceptable way to achieve this goal. Using the "majority argument" is not, this type of thinking which has always through history led to the grouse abuse of individual rights, is unacceptable. Lastly what exactly is the "saving knowledge of Jesus Christ? a book written long after he was dead, by people who never knew him or saw him walk on water etc. might just suggest that reason and persuasion are not on his side. Mr. Mohler and other Christians are free to believe what the want, but not force others too. whether a majority or not!

"Perhaps I have piqued your conscience and you want to know how it is that you can avoid the punishment you have earned. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do to save yourself, your crimes have been committed and retribution is necessary." - Canyon Shearer

If you want to believe that you are worthless and sinful, go right ahead, but leave me out of it. I live a moral life, I do my best for my family, friends, and community and I have earned no punishment. The notion that all humans are worthless but for god is absolutely ridiculous and appalling.

Are you so naive to believe we non-Christians haven't heard this nonsense already and rejected it? You bear no good news, only stale, useless, barbaric superstition.

I don't even understand why there is a Faith Section in the Washington Post newspaper.

to Vin:

So let me ask, just for fun here, are you saying that you would obey Romans 13:1-7 regardless of who is in power? Wow! I'd normally say that you are missing a screw, but you're missing the whole apparatus my Christian fellow. Tell that to the Jew & Serbs in Russia under Stalin's rule; tell that to Christian Jews in Germany during Hitler's reign; or tell it to the rest of America who still enjoys thinking & sees George Bush for the village idiot that he is. To have conviction is a beautiful thing, but to just be a stubborn jackass when reality slaps you in the face & says that your actions are that of a mentally challenged nincompoop, I am sorry, I'll pass on Romans 13:1-7. I recommend you do the same.

Mr Mohler, you write like a 4th grader who likes to hear himself explain things to 3rd graders. Hardly unexpected for an Baptist professional. As a man in touch with the emotions you likely believe your god gave you (and you likely assume you owe him for) I'm sure you can appreciate the "honesty" of this critique without a petty dismissal.

OK, so now you have made an elementary semantic "distinction" between a C-Nation and a Nation full of C's. What do you intend to do with this distinction? Anything? repeat it five or six different ways?

Advising American C's not to be offended at seeing a menorah on display during the holidays has to be the most flaccid contribution to this On Faith series yet. If you did not have a plaque on your desk saying "President of a big Christian Seminary" your terrifcally un-"distinct" redundo-blather above would probably never have been considered for publication.

This "hope" of yours which you say "could be nothing less" than that all "Americans come to a saving knowledge of Christ" seems to follow a sense of obligation. It is also bound to a rudimentary dismaissal of all non-Christians. How do you see this as a positive contribution to the struggle of religious liberty (for everyone else)?

Look, I'll bet your remakably personable and a darn peaceful neighbor, and as an atheist I was brought up to always treat others as I would be treated, to look for the best in them and to recall humility when feeling proud and righteous. So I won't make any personal snipes that a grown man like yourself would have trouble receiving. So Merry Christmas.

My fear is that the Christian extremist agenda is in fact to make the US a "Christian" nation like Iran is a Muslim nation devoid of any tolerance or freedom for those of other religions.

The Write has some relevent points. Even though I am not a Christian and have a certain heart burn with someone telling me that they were the only one capable of enjoying the inner serenity of joy of blessedness, they are not the only one. I know I have and so have meny in my religion and Bhuddism.
There are a lot of thing that should be given credit to the determination of Christians.

1)Abolition of Slavery
2)Attempted good will to man
3)Take care of the weak and sick

As such, there is a lot to learn from the teachings of Jesus Christ. However, a lot of them were also stated by Bhuddha. We just whitwashed them.
Now, other religions have brought us a lot of good as well.
1) Treatment of animals - Hinduism, Bhuddism
2) Abolution and cleanliness - Islam, Hindu, Bhuddism
3) Meditation and serenity - Hinduism, Taoism, Bhuddism
4) non-violence - Hinduism,Bhuddism
5) Treatment of environment - native american beliefs.

We can see that we have learnt from each other. If not, how come John the Baptist insisted that you needed to be baptised in water "to cleanse yourself" which the Hindus have been doing for thousands of years in the ganges (to "cleanse themselves") even before John. I wonder if John and Jesus were ever in India -huh!!!!

Mr. Mohler may not realize it, but his comments are intellectually and morally offensive ... I am sure he did not mean it, but then that is how people who think they have all the answers tend to behave.

Mr. Mohler thinks that the answer is in Christianity. Since he gets a charge out of that for himself, I laud him and am glad that he has found what HE believes is the answer and the truth.

However, he fails to understand simple concepts or contradicts himself on several key points.

First, there is NO question that America is NOT a Christian nation or even a religious nation. Yes, it happens that there are many people of different denominations, all calling themselves "Christians" but Baptists and Evangelists have long viewed Catholics as a different species. Mormons too.

Mr. Mohler acknowledges that the historical record shows that America was NOT established as a Christian nation. He also says: "The establishment clause of the First Amendment forbids a national church."

Actually, this is reflective of a misunderstanding at the most elemental level. What the Constitution does is prohibit any law regarding an establishment of religion. This means that it is not just a national church, but the very concept of religion, whatever denomination it may be, that cannot be created or prohibited. "NO LAW" in the Constitution means "NO LAW." The Constitution also says that no law abridging the free exercise of religion may be passed. That applies to all religions, not just Christianity.

If people will reflect for a moment, this is why the state or city cannot show the symbols of one or more religions in its official capacity -- in other words, neither can "endorse" any religion.

He says "Yet, even at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, some states still had established churches. Congregationalism was the established church of Connecticut until 1818. Furthermore, several of the colonies and settlements had been established with explicitly Christian identities."

The point is, of course, that the ratification of the Constitution did away with all that.

"The founders were themselves a mixture of devoted Christians, apparent Deists, and some freethinkers. An honest look indicates that some, like Jefferson, were fairly radical in their skepticism. Others, like Franklin, were eccentrics of one sort or another. Washington was probably a committed Christian marked by some reticence to speak of his personal beliefs. Others included explicitly evangelical Christians."

Okay, so if it was okay with the founders to let each one be, why is not okay with Mr. Mohler?

"Nevertheless, the worldview shared by the founders and the colonists was explicitly and unquestionably Christian. The plausibility structures that made the world sensible to Americans -- the intellectual principles and moral habits that guided their actions -- were clearly based in the Christian tradition and the Bible. In fact, this truth was stated clearly, openly, and honestly by American presidents, political leaders, jurists, and others until recent decades."

I respectfully disagree. When a person who is a Christian and also happens to be President, states his worldview, this does not mean that the founders and colonists shared the same worldview. By the way, what is a Christian worldview? It's easy to make up a phrase like that, but what does it mean?

"America is not a Christian nation by constitution or charter. There has never been a time when all Americans were Christians or that Christian identity could be assumed as evangelical."

This part, he got right.

"But, American citizens are overwhelmingly Christian."

Putting aside arguments about denomination and the "quality" of Christian, this is true. But, so what? American citizens overwhelmingly have two arms and two legs.

"The American experiment in religious liberty has produced a nation that, unlike most of Europe, has resisted complete secularization."

Europe is secular? That's an interesting worldview. Ever heard of the Archbishop of Cantebury, ever heard of the Pope, ever heard of the Greek Orthodox Church, ever seen the cathedrals and churches in France, Spain, Germany?

"The vast majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians. This simple fact points to the "Christian" character of the nation."

I think the vast majority of Americans identify themselves as Americans. There is no such thing as a Christian "character" of the nation. I have NEVER been anywhere, including inside a church, where people have said, "well, lookee here, we are Christian Americans."

"America is not Christian by constitutional provision or creedal affirmation -- but its people are overwhelmingly Christian by self-affirmation. Thoughtful evangelicals will not overestimate the convictional character of this self-identification. Secularists ought not to overestimate its superficiality."

Actually, the opposite. By constitutinal provision America is NOT a Christian nation. The last two sentences are gobbledygook. The convictional character of people varies - in fact, a large part of the right-wing Christian fundamentalist movement is based on the notion that far too many "Christians" are losing their "values."

>

I think there is deep misunderstanding here. The vast majority of Americans share a national holiday called Christmas. For some Christians, the birth of Christ is an occasion to be involved in some sort of religious service. By no means is this the vast majority.

I love to listen to Handel's Messiah and have a "tradition" of doing so for the past 30+ years at Christmas. Although it is the Christmas Oratorio, my enjoyment of the music has nothing to do with being Christian -- which I am not.

"When such an overwhelming majority of citizens celebrate a common holiday, the presence of imagery and symbolism does indeed saturate the country. It could not be otherwise."

If you think that stores owned by non-Christian businessmen are using the imagery and symbolism out of religious spirit, think again.

Some years ago, my wife and I opened Christmas presents on Christmas morning -- yes, my wife is Christian, but not a zealot. We dropped our daughter off at the airport and were left alone on Christmas day for the first time in many years. WE decided to go and get lunch. The restaurants were closed. In desperation, we tried an IHOP - closed. We finally found a Kosher deli called Ruebens -- it had Christmas tree lights in the window and a huge sign reading, "OPEN CHRISTMAS DAY!"

"The allergic reaction of some cannot nullify the rights of the many."

This is both true and ignorant. Nobody says that Christmas may not be celebrated. There is, however, a recognition that Christmas is a national, secular holiday. The ignorant with the allergic reaction, say "Christmas" should not be treated as religious since it is indeed a secular national holiday -- they say worse things too but that is for another day. Those who believe that Christmas should retain its religious character are entirely correct and should be able to do so.

"As America recognizes and respects the diversity of the beliefs of its citizens, we should expect to see more symbolism representing different religions rather than less. Christians should not be offended by the public display of the Menorah at Hanukkah or the display of other religious symbols at other occasions."

Absolutely yes. And neither should Jews or Muslims, or Hindus be offended by any display of any religion.

"Religious liberty means liberty for all."

Amen, brother, but even as you say this, you go on later to contradict yourself and want every one to be Christian.

"Should America be a Christian nation? No. Not in a constitutional or creedal sense. But, as a believer in Jesus Christ, my hope is that every American would come to a saving knowledge of Christ. My hope could be nothing less. But that would mean a nation of Christians, not a Christian nation."

This is really offensive. It offends the intellect because our Constitution says it ain't so. It is morally offensive because it denigrates other people's beliefs and suggests that only Mohler's belief is worthy.

If he were in Saudi Arabia and someone said that he should be Muslim because that is "saving knowledge" he'd be offended.

In fact, when he makes a statement such as this, there couldn't be anything more un-Christian ... or un-American.

"According to the Bible, the Kingdom of God will include believers in Christ from every tongue and tribe and people and nation. There will be no American section in Heaven. Faith does not come to nations, but to individuals. Yet, nations are shaped by the faith and worldview of their citizens."

So what? If the Bible says so and you believe it, good for you. The historical record says this hasn't happened in 2006 years. But it may. If so, good for you.

"Is America a Christian nation? No. But it is a nation with a majority of its citizens identifying themselves as Christians. This is a distinction with a difference."

I have already discussed why the statement as phrased is not true in that Americans are not defined by Christianity ... or perhaps any other religion. This is a distinction Mohler does not get.

Meanwhile, Merry Christmas!

If by Christian Nation you mean that the United States shares the misguided principles of the Christian Nations during the Crusades, I agree.

However, if this were a nation truly lead by Jesus I would hope things would be a lot different, not just now, but throughout our nation's history. Would Jesus have condoned the slaughter of Native Americans, or the enslavement and subsequent treatment of blacks? What about the "alternative interrogations" of Iraqi detainees that occurs today according to our Nation's foreign policy? Can you imagine Jesus pouring water over a hooded man to simulate drowning in the interest of Christian National Security? Or whipping a slave to death for trying to escape? These are things Americans have been responsible for and have been allowed to do under American laws and customs at different points in this nation's extremely un-Christ-like history. Do you really wish to associate Christ's name with these things? By insisting this is a Christian Nation, that is precisely what you are doing.

Christ is about love, not about torture and slavery. Those things seem to me more that of the work of the Devil, who according to the Bible is the actual ruler over not only the United States, but the entire world, and will be as such until the Apocalypse. When that day comes, not only will this be a Christian Nation, it will be a Christian World. Check out the Bible - it's in there.

I wish this were a truly Christian Nation. If it were, I believe we would all be a lot better off.

I am also a Christian pastor. I am not Southern Baptist(thank God) and believe in religious liberty. While Mr. Mohler might be technically correct in asserting that a majority of Americans self-identify as Christians; public attendance at worship and those who live a Christian life-style are another matter altogether. Even within Southern Baptist circles most pastors would concede privately that they would be ecstatic if most of their congregation were Christian. I would agree for the congregation that I pastor. The truth of the matter is that the practice of Christianity forces human beings to give up selfish living, care for people of lesser means, offer forgiveness to enemies, and share their faith in living the abundant life. My only reason for sharing my faith is that others might share in the joy of serving God daily. I could care less about transforming America into a Christian nation. I would settle for the church allowing God to transorm it into a Christian organization that cares more for people than popularity. That is the core of the gospel of Jesus and for his beliefs, other religious people crucified him. I don't blame Jewish people. If Jesus preached the same ideals publicly today, Christians might help nail him up. Enjoy the holidays or not. But, I will pray for you all and your right not to pray.

This nation was founded by Europeans, Northern Europeans in fact, overwhelmingly Protestant and British and Mercantile. We have since been populated mostly by immigrants from the rest of Europe. We're Christian by default, not by design.

The ability to obtain property regardless of the circumstances of your (white) birth and the right to take property away from non-Europeans were the ideals that formed our nation. Although, you can find support in the Bible for enslaving people and exterminating entire populations of folks that happen to be inhabiting the land YOU want......

I'm a white male of British descent, when my ancestors came here, the US was still British, and I would identify myself as Christian mostly because that's my heritage, not because I believe in the same things the Southern Baptists do.

Madison, surely you jest. There's a difference between John the baptist and John Brown? There goes another one over the coo coo nest.

I knew I'd find it. One got his head whacked off and the other was shot by none other than Robert E Lee. Standin on the levy waitin for the John the Baptist. I've been standin here a long time. Will it never get here?

vastly overwhelming

MY WISH FOR CHRIST-MAS:

THAT ALL CHRISTIANS BEGIN TO USE THEIR LOGIC!

Someone up there ^ wrote:

"Perhaps you do not know that you are a blind-person walking towards a cliff. In that case then you need to be told."

I suggest that YOU are the one with blinders on, my friend. Blindly accepting what has been shoved down your throat your whole life and repeated to you for incessantly has made you blind. I suggest that if you open your eyes, you might not step off that cliff yourself.

The whole deal that you and the others have bought into is very simply this: When your life is over, it's over.

It's arrogant of Christians to call America a Christian nation merely because most Americans acknowledge personally "a Christian identity." Note the indefinite article. As a non-Christian, I have no problem in accepting as a Christian anyone who claims to be a Christian. Were I a Christian, however, I would certainly doubt, if not dispute, the claims of most of those who say they are Christians. Many Christians whose Christian identies come from the extreme reform churches, such as the Southern Baptists or Scottish brands of Presbyterianism, privately and among themselves consider Catholics to be pagans, or worse, followers of the Anti-Christ (as they like to call the Pope), nor does the claim that they all manifest an underlying Judeo-Christian tradition repair their mutual estrangement, for the claim is historically false: Christianity until the Schisms of the sixteenth century was a manifestation of a coherent Helleno-Hebraic tradtion, but that all ended with Luther and the religious wars. It cannot be put back together. Our nation's founders had no illusions about that, and that is why Machiavelli's Discourses and Livy's History of Early Rome, Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics, and Locke, Hume, and Montesquieu are as essential to their thinking as any of the various writings to be found in The Bible.

WELL, MY WISH FOR CHRISTMAS;

THAT EVERYBODY GETS TO SEE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST COMING ON THE CLOUDS WITH HIS GLORY. THAT THOSE THAT DON'T BELIEVE REALIZED WHAT A BIG MISTAKE THEY HAVE DONE. SALVATION OF HUMANITY AND DEPLETION OF SATAN'S WORK. THAT GOD FORGIVES A LOT OF PEOPLE AND CLEAN US. THAT WE GET MANY BLESSINGS FROM THE LORD IN 2007.

THANK YOU LORD JESUS FOR CHRISTMAS AND FOR BEING AWAY FROM YOUR KINGDOM TO GIVE US LIFE AND BLESSINGS. THE BIBLE TELLS ABOUT YOUR SACRIFICE AND THE TRUTH OF YOUR BIRTH IN EARTH FOR THE HUMANS' SALVATION (Lord you write and talk better than any man).

MERRY CHRISTMAS PEOPLE!

To KB:

"Jesus would be a huge socialist if he were alive today. I can't prove or disprove his resurrection, but I can tell you that much."

Luckily for all of us, Christ had very little to say about political matters. To paraphrase Father James Schall, S.J., reading the New Testament as a basis for political philosophy is like reading Shakespeare as a basis for nuclear physics. It's just not there.

America is not a nation of Christians. It is a nation of which the majority of the people are Christians. This distinction is more important than whether this is a country founded on Christian principles or a country of Christians. When we see Christians (of which I proudly consider myself) as a majority, just as the US is majority white, then we understand how we must go about dealing with the this issue.

Protection of minority rights is intrinsic to the Constitution. The overwhelming majority of Christians in this country, make it necessary for a proactive protection of minority rights. If a non-Christian feels that Christian expressions of their faith in offical offices discriminates against them, we as the majority have to take that seriously. We can not simply say, well we want it this way and so we don't care what the minority feels.

Now I don't agree that it is necessary to remove all expressions from official offices, but I think those that do express their faith at work, need to do so at great responsibility. Just because the majority of people believe one thing, doesn't mean it should be the policy of a democracy, democracy is about consensus, and the political infighting we've had over the past 50 years and the nonaction we've had on major issues shows us we need to strive for consensus more than we strive to get our way.

Canyon Shearer stated: "A person would not stand beside a cliff which blind-people are walking off of without attempting to warn the blind of their impending death."

I believe that you are the one who is standing beside the cliff. Should I try to bring you to my atheus side where I reign freely & believe that it is death that makes us all afraid, & that's why we cling on to fables & myths about a virgin having a "holy" baby, a man walking on water, & then resurrecting after death?? Should I bring to my side since I feel I've found my own salvation? Or should I just let you be like the founding fathers intended it? I don't believe the God you believe in will be checking religious cards when you die. I doubt He/She will say, "well, I can't let you into heaven b/c you practiced the wrong religion on earth, so have fun w/ Mephistopheles down there." I think your actions, or inactions, towards His/Her other creatures-& by creatures I mean all living beings-here on earth is what He/She will be looking for. Jesus' brother said so on James 2:24: "it is by his ACTIONS that a person is PUT RIGHT WITH GOD, and not by his FAITH alone." Hmm? You can claim you have it al right & you know what the afterlife will be like, but it is your work here on this planet full of homosexuals, abortionists, Muslims, Buddhists, & everyone that Christians tend to marginalize, that you wil be judged for. And that's according to JC's bro.

To Canyon Shearer:
You win. Of all the comments, yours came closest to making me puke.

To Madison:

First, any relation to the author of our Constitution? :)

Second, thank you for pointing out that the ten Commandments that some zealots want posted everywhere have very little correlation to the secular laws which America has. Can you imagine what would happen if we tried to enforce a law saying 'Thou shalt not covet"?

It depends on whether you are discussing professing christians or practicing christians -- any discussion of America as a Christian Nation must first decide which is correct.

Mark Twain in his "Letter to the Earth" made the distinction clear -- America is full of people who say they are Christian, but their actions (does the Bible not say "by their fruits shall you know them?") tend to lead one to think otherwise.

For example, I just last week got an email from one of those so-called Christians who said the solution to the immigration problem is to set armed soldiers on the border to shoot the starving and desperate peasants who are crossing.

One has to ask, is that Christian? Or is that just a whacky idea from someone claiming to be a Christian? And yet, one hears similar ideas all the time. Consideration of why those people are doing what they are doing, let alone Christian mercy for their suffering, seems not to be an issue.

The US was allegedly founded on Christian ideals (which, at the time, included slavery) but, as Twain's angel in his story says to the coal yard owner, "I have the honor to call your attention to the fact that you seem to have deteriorated."

My view is that anything relevant to actual LIFE that can be discussed in "religious" context, can also be discussed without it. Anything that can be done "for Jesus" can also be done for its own sake. It doesn't matter to me whether a person believes Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected.

Stripping away the cult of personality, the golden calf, etc., I would have to say that the USA is the LEAST christian nation in the world. Giving up all your earthly comforts and possessions to serve the neediest? Sorry, not here.

And ya know what, I like it that way! God bless America, the home of freedom and capitalism! No, we're not perfect, perhaps we're even a little tainted by some exploitation here and there.... but we know the face of progress, and its not socialism -- bad habits can be remended, but general principals will rarely be changed.

Jesus would be a huge socialist if he were alive today. I can't prove or disprove his resurrection, but I can tell you that much.

While I'm prepared to take any individual's definition of Christian as it applies to himself personally... from a worldview perspective, I do *not* agree that we are a nation of mostly Christians. Our aggregate of choices do not reflect that conclusion at all.

Thank you for your kind replies. But this is not "my approach". It is very much the approach that the Bible teaches me to follow.

2 Timothy 2:15 - "Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth."

The apostle Paul ministered and debated with others over the course of his life and such an approach can help clarify matters and spread knowledge amongst others, believers and unbelievers alike. There is no need for a Christian to shy away from expressing his/her faith whenever a personal opportunity arises. In every such instance, however, we find that Paul was talking to a willing ear. There are instances in the Bible where accusations were brought against the apostles of disruptive behavior, but the Bible speaks of these accusations as false. If the Bible were to approve of disruptive or aggressive evangelism, it would not speak of such accusations as false but would instead glorify such acts.

As a Christian I am also required to respect the governing authorities, which includes the American Constitution. (Romans 13:1-7) So I certainly cannot, honestly impose my Christianity on anyone else without going against the teachings of the Bible.

There are only two mentions of religion in the entire COnstitution (including Amendments) Both preclude religion from the secular role of government. (No religious tests for office, and the Establishment/Free Exercize clauses)As to the 10 comandments, the very first one is negated by the above in our Constitution. I think there are four that can reasonably said to fit into US law. (Murder, theft, false witness, and in some instances like military code, adultery.) Otherwise - not really part of our legal system. BTW - the parts of the 10 which are in our law are found in some form in virtually every legal code. Nothing so odd about that.
And while the author makes a good point about most Americans identifying themselves as Christians, how many are that in reality? How many practice the faith preached by Jesus? and how many are just Easter/Christmas Christians? I know many who don't know John the Baptist from John Brown.

Mohler's betters on this topic, Tom Edsall formerly of the Post, and Randall Balmer of Columbia University and author of the chapter Where Have All the Baptists Gone, in his Thy Kingdom Come; have weighed Mohler and his associates in the takeover of the Southern Baptist Convention on this matter and found Mohler a counterfeit to the tradition he now champions in this blog.
The consensus on Mohler and his history in the SBC is not a pretty thing. He is kind of a brother to Karl Rove, if the worst perceptions of Rove are true; duplicitious, shameless, expedient, dark, dank and a prevaricator to boot.
By willful intent, Mohler has forsaken the great Baptist legacy of Carlyle Marney and George Truett. He is a bastard child of the slimiest of the Baptist experience in America, rising professionally on the crest of a smarmy populism created and mastered by demagogues that would make George Wallace and Huey Long wince.
It is a travesty that Meacham would give him voice in this forum.

It is nice to hear a leading evangelical say what is in the above piece. As a Christian who would differ with the SBC on several issues of interpreting faith, it is nice to hear some sense that they endorse religious freedom. It is especially good to hear a leading evangelical disavowing the "we are a CHristian nation" mantra of some many conservative religionists.

However, it all comes off a bit disingenuous when groups like the one he is part of regularly try to impose their views on everyone else using the political apparatus of the nation. Gay rights, reproductive choice, free speech, womens rights all come under regular assault from evangelicals trying to make everyone conform to their standards of behavior.

The idea that Christmas is celebrated as a religious holidy is not really supported by anything except words in this column. Look at the consumerism surrounding this holiday? How is it religious to shove your neighbor in quest for some new video game?

To Dan:

You are absolutely right about Christmas's universal appeal. Christmas is one of those holidays that has both a secular and a sacred identity. Just because most people celebrate the secular holiday doesn't mean that they believe in the sacred ideas behind it.

Christmas is a pagan holiday. The fundies who take offense to that need to come back to the real world. (If, indeed, they were ever part of the real world in the first place.)

Treaty of Tripoli, baby, there's your answer! This was the first int'l treaty and explicitly stated that America is NOT a Christian nation!!! The founders were brilliant men.

Google it and read the text if you don't know what I'm talking about.

I find it disturbing that in their zeal to create a theocratic America, conservative Christians are seeking to do away with one of the great innovations of Christianity.

In Matthew 22, when Christ was asked whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, he answered "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's" (Matt. 22: 21). In saying this, Christ provided Western civilization with one of its guiding principles: that Church and state are distinct entities. To my knowledge, no other society accepts this as a basic philosophical principle. Even the Greeks and Romans made religious observance a function of the state. The Romans even had elected priesthoods.

I wish that those Christians who seek to create a "Christian nation" would read St. Augustine of Hippo, who wrote in his *Concerning the City of God* that the Christian must live in the secular world as a captive or a pilgrim, always keeping in mind that his true citizenship is not of this world, but of the next.

Your essay says, "This is certainly apparent at Christmas, when most Americans celebrate a specifically Christian holiday." Actually, Christmas is a bad example. Have you ever been in Japan at this time of year? Even though only 4% of Japanese are Christian, there are Christmas decorations EVERYWHERE, every hotel and restaurant is booked solid with Christmas parties, and everyone gives each other Christmas presents. The Japanese LOVE Christmas, and it has nothing to do with being Christian.

Thank you for the article Dr. Mohler.

"The whole problem with religion is the tenet of spreading. "

Give me a break. Vegans want to spread the word, as do animal rights activists, war protesters, anti-globalism activists, feminists, free-traders, immigrants' rights activists, global warming activists - heck, even libertarians want more of us to be libertarians. There is absolutely nothing unique about Christians, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or any other religious group trying to educate others about the truth they believe they've found, and attempting to convince them to give it a try.

"most of the things they forbid are either expressly protected by our bill or rights or are legal. The only place American law agrees with them is don't steal or kill - and every ethical system says that."

You might want to think about that. Adultery isn't expressly protected by the bill of rights, nor is perjury ("false witness"). And while we understand the right to free speach to protect blasphemy, the motivation for writing the bill of rights was not to protect my write to stand on the streetcorner and spout blasphemous obscenities - their focus was pretty clearly on a bit more significant level of discourse (political dissent, philosophical and religious debates, public grievances, petitions for redress, etc.). The founding documents of our nation were not intended to establish or defend religion - but the moral understanding of the writers and ratifiers was formed and shaped by the Hebrew and Christian scriptures.

Rev. Mohler is partially correct, I think, but tries to make too broad an argument. So we are a nation with a Christian majority? So what? Our governmental institutions - our schools, courts, legislatures and executive branches - are secular. While office holders are certainly free to have their own personal religious beliefs - or none - our government has no religious ideology, nor should it spend effort promoting or proselytizing on behalf of one faith. To me this is a non-issue, but one that the Christian Right in this country cannot accept.

Vin has the right approach. Set examples of a christian way of life and others will notice and follow.

If America is a Christian nation I'm glad I don't live there. I prefer my secular country where religion is all but unimportant and hardly ever discussed. I certinly can't see that Christianity makes America more humane than Europe. There are many moderate humane Christians in the US. However. the extremests play on this weight of numbers. I also don't see a clear seperation of Church and State in the US. Public policy is often misguided by religious ideology. Militant Christianity in the US scares the secular countries just like militant Islam scares us as well.

The whole problem with religion is the tenet of spreading. This collective will by most religius Christians to convert the rest of the world because they have to be "saved" shows the ignorace of the followers. Mahatma Gandhi said "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are very unlike your Christ." I couldn't agree with it more. If anything, Jesus preached tolerance and inclusiveness. Looking back through history, the hands of the religions with the tenet of spreading the faith are sticky with blood. To say and beleive "According to the Bible, the Kingdom of God will include believers in Christ from every tongue and tribe and people and nation." is the height of ignorance. Every religion is a different path to god. To have everyone beliveing in the same thing will render this earth a boring and devoid of culture. Mr.Mohler's vision of America is frightening.

Well said, Vin! I would rather preach my faith with my actions and let people draw their own conclusions than preach with my words and be found wanting.

Christmas is called Christmas because Christians usurped a Roman holiday called Saturnalia. It was a if-you-can't-beat-'em-join-'em attempt to covert people.

That's why we have decorate trees and give gifts. It's origins have nothing to do with the birth of Jesus.

Isn't it interesting that many of the beloved Christimas carols -- White Christmas, Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas, etc.--were written by Jewish songwriters? Clearly, their idea of Christmas was of love and community--which transcends religion.

And for Christians who feel compelled by their faith to convert everyone they know, stop it. It is remarkably insensitive and patronizing. Spread your faith by living the best life you can. Trust me, we'll notice.

As a Christian, I believe it is my personal privilege and duty to 'speak' about my Lord and Saviour by walking in His steps and declaring His love and achievement to anyone who is willing to listen. That is the kind of evangelism I am called to and one that I will unabashedly embrace.

Does that mean I am forcing my faith upon someone else?

Definitely not.

Does that mean I wish to saturate the airwaves and all other communication channels with proclamations of my faith?

No, I don't. In fact, I think such an approach is not Biblical and certainly detrimental to the goal of spreading the good news.

I am convinced that anyone who looked into the Bible willingly and honestly will see its truth. To this end, I will try my best to make available the principles and teaching embodied in the Bible through the living of my life and the speaking of my mind to anyone interested.

Mr.Mohler,
Why are you playing on words? You are contradicting yourself and you are clearly PROSELYTIZING and not in too subtle and Coercive fashion.

With this thinly-veiled, condescending and suffocating paternalistic attitude of "We know what is good for you and we just want to save you," this is really very scarry for any non-Christians in America.
We came to America to enjoy our freedom including religious freedom and the last thing we want is constant harassment of religious proselytizing from you - direct or indirect.

Please, just save your own soul and leave us alone-we know our own way to salvation and remember that early European immigrants fled to America to escape religious oppression.

Jesus said the pray in a closet. Wearing your religion on one's sleeve, and believing that you are the only true religion will lead, given the state of modern weaponry, to the destruction of the world. If Christians practiced the teachings in Sermon On The Mount, and let go of all the moralizing and demonizing, Americans would be a better place. The problem is that actually practicing the principles in the Sermon would be extremely difficult, which is why sanctimonious attitudes, and demonization are so attractive.
It's easier to chastize others than look in the mirror.
Democracy, and the freedoms it guarantees, religious freedom being one of the most important, is the hope of mankind. Being a nation of laws, guarantees equal freedom to everyone, and involves checks and balances against human excess. The great thing about our Constitution is that it is able to be changed, as the civil rights movement has proved. We used to be an apathied country, supported by Christians. Laws are not written in stone, religious doctrine usually is. Religion should be a guaranteed private activity. Laws should embody the secular component of the basic spiritual values common to all religions, in addition to secular beliefs embracing the best perspectives and knowledge of about human nature. They should be composed with the goal of curbing the excess common to all religions and human nature in general.
To call America a Christian nation violates our Constitution, can lead to a tyranny of the majority, and can cause citizens to want to create a theocracy. To call America a Democracy, should make ALL its citizens proud. The less we mix politics and religion, the freer our country will be.

Most of the Founders were children of the British Enlightenment, which had a far more balanced view of religion than the French Enlightenment did. They understood that religion is a good (perhaps the best) method of teaching virtue, which was vital to the survival of the republic. However, they also saw all the damage that religious fervor could do when linked with political power, so they took steps to prevent that from happening in their country.

The founding fathers weren't just looking at the religious trauma happening in Europe in the 1600's while writing the constitution, they were looking at the unfortunate leave of senses that happened right on American soil in 1692: the Salem Witch Trials!
They knew that Americans were just as capable as Europeans of religious extremism.

Could someone please explain to me how Jesus was born to a virgin and how he died and then came back to life. This is a very dificult concept for me to understand.

I thought the writer wrote a lot without really saying anything. That said, I'll admit his piece stirs up a lively debate.

To those who say, "I am happy because I'm a Christian and I want you to find the same happiness by becoming a Christian," this is my reply. There are many ex-christians who sincerely feel that Christianity caused them lots of anguish. Should we listen to them and stay away from Christianity? Or, should our decision depend on which way a majority feels? If a majority feels, god forbid, the former way, does that necessarily prove Christianity implies happiness?

Most Christians say, "Faith is the most important thing." Sorry. Truth is the most important thing. Pursue truth and be guided by truth. If the whole truth is not known, yet, that is ok. Still keep pursuing. In the process, if you discover that a proposition that you thought at one time was true is now false, have the courage to toss out that old proposition/belief.

What is difficult for me to understand as an American is why some symbols of faith are "good" and some are "bad".

Rarely does someone get offended when a storefront has a nativity scene prominently displayed at Christmas time.

But when a soldier loses his life bravely defending his country and the rights of every American irregardless of their particular faith, he's denied a simple star with a circle around it on his headstone.

I'm talking about Sgt. Patrick Stewart, a Wiccan, and a soldier who was killed in Afghanistan more than a year ago. There have been other soldiers, too, who have been denied due respect for their chosen faith. Although the VA allows 38 other symbols of faith on military headstones, they have denied the Pentacle for years with very little genuine reasoning behind their arguments. Lawsuits have been filed, and fierce controversy has been stirred up.

It's amazing to me that a supposedly free country could deny the rights of any American, and in particular a slain war hero. There is no "official" religion in America. Worshippers of all persuasions should be guaranteed the same rights.

To get off subject, in response to those who think that Christians should not be sharing their faith, I implore you research and understand what Christians believe.

A Christian is a person rectified to God, saved from Hell by grace through faith, and the Christian believes strongly and with support for a real place called Hell.

A Christian who is not sharing his or her faith is a heartless and uncaring person. A person would not stand beside a cliff which blind-people are walking off of without attempting to warn the blind of their impending death.

Saying that Christians should not share their faith is intensely intolerant, offensive, and ignorant.

Perhaps you do not know that you are a blind-person walking towards a cliff. In that case then you need to be told.

God has explicitely told us what He wants from us. God will accept nothing less than perfect holiness into Heaven, and He has told us that lying is a damnable sin, He holds it is high as murder, adultery, and Grand-Theft. He has also voiced His displeasure in hatred, lust, petty larceny, and blasphemy.

Any of these is worthy of discipline and the perfect justice of God demands one punishment, that punishment is Hell everlasting.

If this is true, and a Christian didn't warn you, that Christian would be worse than a life-guard at a swimming pool who is engrossed in a good book and has no time to save the drowning.

Perhaps I have piqued your conscience and you want to know how it is that you can avoid the punishment you have earned. Unfortunately there is nothing you can do to save yourself, your crimes have been committed and retribution is necessary.

Fortunately God in the Flesh, Jesus Christ, lived a perfect sinless life and was hung upon a cross in Jeruselem for your sake, He took your punishment upon Himself when He had not earned a single lash from the whip. The Righteousness of Jesus Christ can be imputed upon you if you'll Repent of your sins against God. In order to Repent, appologize to God, humble yourself before Him, and fight against the sins that will come up in the future. Trust in Jesus Christ that His sacrifice and love will save you from Hell.

I feel that telling people about the Love of Christ would be worth evangelizing alone...but the fact that Hell and your soul is at stake, evangelizing has taken on a new urgency in order to warn the world of the impending wrath of God!

"This is certainly apparent at Christmas, when most Americans celebrate a specifically Christian holiday. When such an overwhelming majority of citizens celebrate a common holiday, the presence of imagery and symbolism does indeed saturate the country. It could not be otherwise.

The allergic reaction of some cannot nullify the rights of the many. As America recognizes and respects the diversity of the beliefs of its citizens, we should expect to see more symbolism representing different religions rather than less. Christians should not be offended by the public display of the Menorah at Hanukkah or the display of other religious symbols at other occasions."

The "allergic" reaction generally comes only when the religious imagery and symbolism is put into government or commercial centers that do not have a clear speaker whose personal faith is being represented. I am delighted to visit people's homes during religious holidays and see the variety of representations of their faith, and religion-based tradition, that they make part of their lives. I see the significance their particular faith has for them. Putting a grab-bag of creches, menorahs, Santas and dreidels in a courthouse or an airport makes the religious symbols *less* significant. The Seattle airport doesn't have a religion, though presumably its individual employees do and I would be fine with their carrying symbols of those beliefs with them as long as they do not interfere with their work.

As someone raised in a highly minority religion, the holidays of which are wholly unknown to most Americans, I'm actually happy NOT to have my family's faith turned into an occasion for sales or put up in plastic by people who don't share it.

I don't think it's accurate to say the U.S. is a "Christian nation" in the sense that most people think of the phrase. There are a lot of church-goers here, but the collective actions of the American church and American culture don't add up to "Christian".

I've always more or less considered the American practice of Christianity - particularly in the light of the current administration's flag-waving tone - to be more of a country club than a spiritual discipline. There have been too many occasions on which cold shoulders have been presented to those who are different, who don't fit in, who speak with a different voice, or who are willing to ask challenging questions out of the mainstream.

The most vocal portions of the American church of late have been beating the drums over the war in Iraq (keeping it going) and gay marriage (preventing it). Too many churchgoers here seem to be comfortable supporting a military conflict that's been ill-planned and in which thousands of servicemen have been needlessly killed. Where was the American church in the early days of all this? If anyone should have been questioning the morality of the Iraq occupation, it should have been them.

And gay marriage is another red herring. Despite a culture in which over half the marriages fail, the American church is red-faced and obsessed with ensuring that two men can't "play house". The Scriptures are loaded with stories in which Jesus met and talked to some rather unpopular people - to a woman (in those days, quite low on the social totem pole), to Zacchaeus, to a prostitute. Most in the American church would just as soon stick a picket sign in the faces of folks like these as talk to them as the human beings they really are.

And that leads to what I would consider the biggest current downfall of the American church and the so-called "Christian nation" of the U.S.: the unkind tone many such moralists claim. It can be anything from cold civility to outright vitriol. Many such individuals style themselves as defenders of morality but their prickly exteriors don't invite newcomers or discussion. The American church should be the largest bringer of kindness, good will and - in sparse supply these days, it seems - listening ears; very few in the American church seem to know how to do that. They're great at telling people what's wrong with them, but not much else.

The history of the U.S. certainly doesn't suggest that America is "Christian", either. From its violent inception and construction on the backs of slaves to its oppression of women, Jews, African Americans and other racial minorities, and gays (currently), this nation continually demonstrates an attitude of "I've got it, you can't have it". It took the nation 188 years (almost two centuries!) to pronounce, with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that African Americans have the right to the same treatment as whites. Women didn't even have the right to vote until as recently as 86 years ago. And where was the American church in these matters? Ensuring these groups remained second-class and invisible. Is that a characteristic of a "Christian nation"?

We claim to be one of the richest nations in the world, yet so many children here don't have access to decent education or health care, and senior citizens are basically hung out to survive on their own. Meanwhile, the privileged continue to prosper. "Not my problem," they say, clutching their checkbooks. Wouldn't a truly "Christian nation" want more sharing with those not so privileged to occur?

Provided there indeed will be a Day of Judgment, it's my prediction that the church in America won't fare as well as it thinks it will. There most certainly will be some uncomfortable questions for it to answer.

This article is a clever attempt to reconcile christian faith and our national character, but in my opinion is a joke. Sure, most people self identify as Christians, but what does that reveal? I'm sure most violent criminals would identify themselves as Christian, but that doesn't mean that they practice Christian values and morals, whatever they happen to be today. Our President claims to be an Evangelical Christian, but had no problem asking for Bin Laden "Dead or Alive", or for starting and waging War which has claimed the lives of thousands of Americans and probably even more Iraqis. Everybody in America whom hasn't examined faith and religiousity self identifies as a Christian, because we've all been raised to believe that we are Christian, based on celebrating Christmas, Easter, et cetera and regardless of how we live our lives. There is no unifying social characteristic of an americanized, so-called "Christian" life. So, Christianity can claim that it's mass acceptance by Americans is the cause of the overarching American social mindset and vision, but that is BS. Regardless that I fully reject any notion of a humanoid deity, Mohler claims that the way I live my life and the way my child will life his/her life is guided by a Christian, American conscience?

That the Christmas tree, or many of the 10 Commandments or the December 25th celebration of Christ's birth originate in non Christian traditions does not mean that the Christian meaning of them is bogus, which some of the smart alecks have posted. It's a fact of life that civilizations and cultures appropriated symbols from each other and gave them a different meaning. All that demonstrates is that human beings have a knack for creativity and are fairly open to symbols that might more powerfully convey their own beliefs.
As for the US (America is more than us, right?) being a nation of Christians, any evidence of that is not found in self-identification but in the fruit borne by the individual and collective beliefs of people. How do we treat one another, particularly the "least of my brethren"? And of course I suspect that even Jesus would admit He didn't originate that thought nor is it exclusive to Christians, as was pointed out.
What IS unique to Christianity is the belief that Jesus is the Messiah, that he suffered, died and rose from the dead, lives on not just in memory but in reality and that He will come again. Any symbol which is explicity tied to those beliefs, e.g., a cross, is a religious symbol and should not be denigrated by being used in any way by the government. That's what was wrong with Roy Moore's attempt to put the Decalogue monument in a courthouse. It just doesn't belong there, because it is explicitly religious and not simply 10 steps to good living. The Decalogue is the introduction to the Covenant between the Hebrews and their God, which is spelled out in the first Commandment. A Christmas tree, on the other hand, is not necessarily religious insofar as it has no basis in Scripture nor is it a universal Christian symbol. A menorah, on the other hand, IS a religous symbol, because it originates with a Scriptural event and can never be separated from that event. I know the ADL might not like that, but that's the way it is.
Mohler is right that the US is a nation whose citizens overwhelmingly identify themselves as Christians, but as he states, that does not make the US a Christian nation. And he's just being realistic to point that out, as well as to point out that a Christian wants to spread the Good News, even as a Muslim wants to spread the word of Muhammed. The great thing about our country is that not only do they get the opportunity to do that, but anyone can tell them to get lost. The person who objects to proselytizing is the person who really should re-examine his notion of what freedom of speech is all about, as well as examine the origins of his super-sensitivity to matters of public expressions of religious belief.

I couldn't agree more: "Christians should not be offended by the public display of the Menorah at Hanukkah or the display of other religious symbols at other occasions. Religious liberty means liberty for all."

On another point, I believe that one of the problems plaguing most Christians today, & to be fair, most religious people in general, is the abandonment of reason. Take Leviticus 20:13 for instance: "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." Are we to seriously kill homosexuals? Would God truly approve killing any of his creatures? I think the time when Christians begin to make excuses for Moses' words is precisely the moment that they stop being Christ followers. I believe they should be a revision of all holy books, & we must omit parts that are, quite frankly, barbaric. If Bible revisionists were able to put together some canons, while discarding others, to form what is now the "holy book" in Nicea in 321 AD, then we can certainly use our precious God given gift of logic, & form a better & more modern Bible. We need to be believers in God, or spirituality in general, but we also need to be skeptical about the authors of all religious literature, for they do show, obviously, human error & prejudice in their views. Reason must triumph over barbarism.

What the hell does Jesus have to do with Christmas?

Mr Mohler missing an important Constitutional provision--as US Citizens we are also to be free FROM religion. That means folks are free to practice their beliefs, but don't impose on me.

And NO, the founders were Deists, not Christian in the contemporary sense. They were overwhelmingly influenced by the Enlightenment. Mr. Mohler also misses/ignores the point that the Anglican founders were excommunicated for their rebellion (King George was head of the Anglican Church--Hence the US has an Episcopal Church, which is part of the Anglican Communion, but not an Anglican Church).

And as previous posters have noted, the percentages of Americans who identify as "Christian" has steadily fallen. But it kinda wrecks his thesis, so that little bit of damning data gets ignored.

Wish I could say I'm surprised.

This WAS a Christian nation prior to the revolution and the establishment of the secular nation, the United States of America. Before, all laws had to conform to the Bible and ministers had great say about public policy. No where is the punctuation of that more pronounced than the "Salem Witch Trials." A great push was made by the founders to avoid the religious nose in people's public lives.

Of course nothing changes that fast. The slave owners signed off on, "all men are created equal" just like the ministry with fingers crossed. Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and others knew it was too much of a change to be done all at once. But they put the documents before them and they signed nonetheless.

Today we are faced with an attempt to rewrite the articles of incorporation to make this a Christian nation. Small wonder that is being met with more than a little resistance.

Calling this a nation of Christians is questionable as well. Those who have signed on to the "Bible is a hoax" now outnumber the "moral majority" at least 3 to 2. The truth is impossible to destroy while the lie can be revealed. The truth hangs around and aggravates the misinformed, the poorly informed too.

This nation took a giant step towards the equality of man and the union of all peoples of earth as one nation. It allows people to be wrong in what they believe until they try to shove that down everyone else's throats. Then convulsions set in. That is what is in the wind and not some union of "faiths" to rule the world.

http://www.hoax-buster.org in case you haven't heard. Don't be the last kid on your block...

Perhaps faith the Bible is a hoax is just another faith?

I think one of the Ten Commandments clearly states "Thou Shalt Not Kill" and yet our policies which are supposedly based on the Ten Commandments sends our soldiers all over the globe to kill to "bring peace" and opposes gun control. Is there any other use for a gun except to kill?

Lets not get into "Honor thy mother and father" and who observes Sabbath? Nothing is closed on the Sabbath.

Maybe I'm just reading the wrong Ten Commandments. I had just assumed that everyone refers to the ones that are stated in the Bible.

Many Christians believe that only through Jesus can one be saved.
Perhaps the only true thing Paul said was
Romans 11:

26 And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written:
"The deliverer will come from Zion;
he will turn godlessness away from Jacob. (Israel-Not World
27 And this is my covenant with them
when I take away their sins."[ The sins of Israel- not one word about Original Sin which is something Christian clergy dreamed up)

The two themes that run through the O.T. Messiah message is that the Messiah would restore Israel to it's former glory and that Israel would become Eden like ( Heaven on Earth) nothing about getting one into Heaven

The web site www.religionquestioned.com has an offer to shut down based on the wrong inforantion given Christians about the O.T. Messiah message if one is foolish enough to believe the Bible is anything but the work of men of old and for ever reinterpreted

While it may be manifest nonsense to act as if the vast majority of Americans do not share a common Christian identification, it is also manifest nonesense to deny that the "common Christian identification" is cultural and not religious based.

As cultural Christians, we do not daily deny ourselves, take up our crossess, and follow Christ. We spend almost all of our time, effort, and resources attempting to satiate our unquenchable desire for more, more, and more.

America's one, great unifying religion is consumerism -- its priest is Madison Avenue and its prophet (profit?) is Wall Street.

I,like Presidnet Mohler, am a Southern Bapstist. Unlike President Mohler, I am considered to be a moderate. Since neither of us are considered radicals, we have probably fallen short of the Christian ideal.

DJCONKLIN, whom should i believe, you or Thomas Jefferson? He wrote the Declaration of Independence and you wrote a run-on sentence.

I share Dr Mohler's vision of a nation where all people know Christ. This has been misrepresented by some here. Of course every Christian would love to see a nation where everyone, BY CHOICE, worshipped Christ. That is not the same thing as a Christian theocracy - which no one wants.

Well said Dr Mohler.

I used to think I was a Christian, considered myself so. Until the right wingers got ahold of it. One of those crazies, I am not.

The great paradox of free religious thought and practise is that its preservation requires a secular state. In no instance in history has there been freedom of religion absent the secular state. The greater the influence of a particular religious inclination, the lesser the freedom to practise or diverge from the orthodoxy. Since it is impossible to suppress freedom of religion without supressing freedom in general, all states which tend to theocracy, are, almost by definition, undemocratic. Equally so, history amply demonstrates that nations caught up in religious fervour or inclined to religious interpretations of their purpose and being tend to have hostile relations with other nations.

To Evan Stewart:

This may come as a shock to you, but I don't want to experience Christ, period. I don't want to do it via state coercion, or via the "benevolent" intentions of someone like Dr. Mohler.

This is a point that is apparently lost on many people. Don't convert me, don't preach to me. I'm fine the way I am.

I completely agree with TIRADE. Maybe I'm just overly sentimental, but I love Christmas. And not because I'm a Christian (I'm not), but because I love family gatherings, snowy days, the spirit of giving, remembering the less fortunate, etc. Christmas has lost all Christian (aka Jesus) meaning. I feel stifled when I decorate a beautiful tree or put up some red bows and wreaths and am told that I am pushing a Christian agenda. What do red and green and trees have to do with Jesus again...?

How many times can we say "vast" and "overwhelmingingly" in one article?

With a little under 80% of Americans self-reporting as "Christian" I suppose you could call that a "vast majority". Of course that's assuming that groups like Mormons and Roman Catholics are "Christian", which many other Christian groups deny (except of course when it's to their advantage in quoting numbers of Christians in articles like this!). But when you start looking at things like church attendance a far different picture emerges--many Americans are lukewarm Christians at best--and to cite the celebration of a nominally Christian holiday like Christmas as an indication of Christian belief, when in fact it is celebrated by many Americans as a primarily secular and commercial holiday, is just wishful thinking.

Perhaps most significantly, the fact that the number of Americans self-reporting as Christian has dropped from about 90% in 1990 to under 80% today shows that claiming that "American citizens are overwhelmingly Christian" may be as dated a statement as it is a loaded one.

America was founded on religion free of persecution. NO America is not predominately any one religion, it is a gathering of many religions; Christian, Jewish, Catholic, Muslim, and Buddhist, Wicken, and many others.

Nancy wrote-"Now you are no longer talking about America being a nation that just happens to be populated by Christians. You want a nation where everyone will be Christian, one way or another. So you really do want a "Christian nation."

Nancy, you have misunderstood Dr. Mohler's point entirely. By saying "my hope is that every American would come to a saving knowledge of Christ", Dr. Mohler does not argue for a Christian nation but a nation of Christians. He clearly articulates the difference in his answer. He desires all people everywhere to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ in order that they may experience true life and complete forgiveness of their sins. This does not imply in any way a desire to create a state that enforces and legislates biblical Law and morality. Even if every person in America was Christian, Dr. Mohler does not argue for a strictly Christian civil government and/or constitution for public matters.
Also, you incorrectly infer that he wants all Americans to become Christian "one way or another" if you mean by forceful intention or coercion. Any quick reading or investigation into Dr. Mohler's own convictions or theology immediately rules out any kind of conversion by any kind of force or dishonest intention.

I agree with most of the tone of this, but you lost me with one point:

"The plausibility structures that made the world sensible to Americans -- the intellectual principles and moral habits that guided their actions -- were clearly based in the Christian tradition and the Bible."

You bury this assertion whithout any substantiating evidence in the middle of an otherwise seemingly neutral argument in an attempt to sell people on a flawed underlying belief. The beliefs of our founders were rooted in many things- enlightenment thought (which, although modern Christians are trying to claim as their own was clearly viewed as something else at the time), English common law (which predates the arrival of the Jewish and Christian faiths to the British isles), Greek philosophy, etc. The Christian faith was just one of the many influences on them, and probably the one that showed through the least in the writing of the Constitution.

The only parts of the Constitution that even resemble the Bible are the requirement for two witnesses for treason (Deut 17 and 19) which can also be attributed to the enlightenment, the notion that the Bill of Rights contain 10 Amendments was based on the 10 commandments (which falls through when you learn madison originally proposed 12, one was rejected and the other not ratified until 1992), an those who really grasp at straws trying to claim that the separation of powers into three branches was modeled after the trinity (don't even get me started). De Toqueville recognized it as our great strength and we should too. The government is strong because it remains neutral on matters of faith, and the clergy in his day recognized that they were stronger because they abstained from the political process. Only then can they tend to their flock dong God's work rather than focusing on the petty politics of the day, and in doing so their flock would naturally then elect those who reflected their values. Conservative Christians would be wise to figure this out soon, rather than making people such as myself ashamed to call themselves Christians.

In the meantime, I'm glad you pray for all Americans, and hopefully all the world to come to Christ. I just pray that you never attempt to use the tools of the government to attempt to spread the gospel.

I'm interested in who the "evangelical Christians" were among the founding fathers. I know that one of the signers of the Declaration was a Roman Catholic, which the author fails to mention.

When we have high-ranking officers at the Pentagon proclaiming that their first loyalty isd to their religion, their second to their families and their third loyalty to their country, I get worried about this religion thing. I am devout in the practice of my religion but I don't believe that interferes with my patriotism anymore than it affirms it. We are in danger of becoming as radically religious as those who kill in the name of God.

I agree with those that think evangelism is pretty bad. "If done with respect" is not a phrase that applies to evangelism, as interfering with someone else's privately held beliefs is just not respectful. Period. If someone else seeks out your faith, it's fine to answer their questions, but trying to foist your beliefs on others is wrong.

I converted from Christianity to atheism in part because of this belief: "According to the Bible, the Kingdom of God will include believers in Christ from every tongue and tribe and people and nation." Only believers in Christ? Even if a little baby is born in Papua New Guinea and never has contact with outsiders and then dies without committing a sin? I've posed this question before (in church) and the answer was always "That's why we have to spread the faith, so people can be saved." So, Christians feel it's their right to impose their religion on others to "save them." Give me a break. I can't believe in a god that would pick out only his favorites to go to heaven when other people (even if they were perfectly moral and wonderful people) would be barred from entry because of what culture they were born into. You have your beliefs, I'll have mine, and we can get along because of the beautiful consitution of ours. I'm not looking to be saved, because I am going to be happy with the fine moral life I am living on earth (more moral than plenty of Christian leaders'!).

By the way, I still celebrate the secular version of Christmas, with a tree and presents and cookies and Christmas dinner. I think it can be a lovely holiday of visiting with friends and family and renewing familial bonds (especially since it's about the only significant time off most people get together all year!). But I'm not going to force anyone else to think that my meaning of Christmas should be theirs!

Happy holidays -- whatever you celebrate -- everyone!

A very interesting commentary, indeed. My readings of the political founders is simply that they saw and to some extent, experienced the pain brought by church dogma on Europe and the early arrives in America and wanted to avoid this if possible. Unfortunately, many of todays churched want to devolve to earlier times when the religious folks of our society played the tunes and the parishoners danced. I strongly object to the fundamentalist extremist religious view and attempts to grab political power thru the pulpit and thru unethical positions taken under government office (military academies, presidency,senate)knowing that these efforts bring serious harm to moderate religious positions and values. Politics and religion need be kept separate. Mixing them is dangerous.

I applaud Dr. Mohler's article. In a time where the easy way out is to hide behind the respective extremes, he does a good job of articulating his Christian conviction as well opening the door to dialouge between adherents of the great religions of our world.

It's always been very interesting to me to think about just how these religions came to be seen as great. Seems to me that quite a few people had to have believed strongly in their respective faiths and then told others about them. It's a good thing to know what you believe and why. It's also seems reasonable to talk with others about such matters.

Elizabeth wrote: "The Buddha had a virgin birth; Zoroaster had a virgin birth; and many so-called "pagan" gods had virgin births--hundreds if not thousands of years before Jesus."

While this is commonly believed Boslooper showed in his book on The Virgin Birth written back in 1962 that it is false.

"In fact, Thomas Jefferson believed the virgin birth of Jesus to be a myth."

He may have believed it, but that doesn't make it so.

Elizabeth & Johnnie have made great points! I really wish we all could be so open-minded. I am Christain and was raised to be very spiritual - wherein the relationship I have with my God is personal - and so I don't believe it should be rammed down someone else's throat. It's important for us to keep in mind that as Americans of all colors (Christian or otherwise), we should respect others' relgious freedoms and not to look down on others for their beliefs. As long as they have good hearts and good intentions, it should not be a problem. By the way, I won't be participating in any office Christmas sing a longs or parties (I'll probably just take the food and drinks & go back to my desk), because I feel it unfairly singles others out who have not had their most significant religious holidays recognized in such a grandiose manner.

The idea that people need to "be saved" automatically creates a dual class system. The "saved" and the "non-saved."

This creates a society where those that are "saved" intrinsically believe that they are somehow at an advantage over others; maybe more intelligent than others; maybe more preferable to God than others.

If than isn't spiritual arrogance, then I don't know what is.

I believe faith and religion are two different concepts. One can believe in God yet not be religious. Religion, as an institution, has perverted every belief system from Buddhism to Christianity. And with the scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church to identifying terrorism to all things Muslim, it has achieved in only alienating those who were skeptical of religion in the first place. I am a believer in God but refuse to associate myself with any religion because of my disappointment with the way humans have egregiously managed to destroy something so beautiful. Religion does nothing more than to segregate the human race.

PB - you claim that "That is Tonio trying to convert us to not care about the religious beliefs of others. He is an evangelical religious pluralist. I wonder if he sees that his comment silences himself?"

This is what is known as a "false corallary". Telling someone you know what is best for them (that they should convert) is not the logical equivalent of them telling you to mind your own business (that they do not want to convert and, far from welcoming, resent the attempt). Their right to believe what they want takes precedence over your desire for them to believe what you want. Sure, you can speak your beliefs to non-believers in an attempt to convert them- your freedom of speech is a right as well. But that right ends when people begin to make laws such that others are forced to conform to a set of values proscribed by a religious text in which they don't believe.

We may not currently be a "Christian nation", but we are well on the path due to the actions of those who feel that all American citizens should be forced into accepting Christian values, as if that would be an acceptable substitute for their professed faith. Or as if, once forced to adhere to those values, they would be more likely to "see the light" and convert.

I thought our nation was founded on Deist principles.

http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm

"One who believes in the existence of a God or supreme being but denies revealed religion, basing his belief on the light of nature and reason."

This would be religious thought based in The Enlightenment, thus based in reason not revelation, mysticism or mystery.

This seems to be especially true today. With greater scientific knowledge and placing the Bible in its historical context, very few people actually take everything in the Bible literally.

Nancy, what he said was that he would hope for all Americans to come to "a saving knowledge of Christ." In other words, he thinks it would be good if everyone *voluntarily* decided to become a Christian.

So no, we do NOT have a Constitution that prevents that, or that prevents everyone from becoming a Muslim, or a Wiccan, or whatever. In fact, our Constitution specifically allows it, in declaring that everyone is free to choose whatever religion (or lack thereof) they prefer. If everyone in America woke up tomorrow and decided to believe in Jesus, the Constitution doesn't have anything to say about it.

So pay attention and read what he's *actually* saying, not what your stereotypes about Christians tell you he's saying.

J-P said: "Most others simply see evangelism as an honest attepmpt to bring happiness."

No. This is one of the fundamental flaws in the mindset of evangelicals. Evangelism is just plain rudeness. If somebody walked up to you and told you that the way you've chosen to life your life is just plain wrong and you need to change or you'll be punished, you would be offended. Imagine the reaction of an evangelical is he was prostelytised to by a Satanist. I highly doubt he would see it as "an honest attempt to bring happiness".

I was raised in a Jewish household, and in every city that I have ever lived in in America, there have been multiple people trying to convert me to Christianity. They tell me stories of how Jesus found them, etc. They then ignore me when I tell them that I'm not interested. Evangelicals see only one form of hapiness - theirs - and ignore the validity of anyone else's. I have never once had an evangelical say, "Well, I wish you'd reconsider, but it's your life," when I say that I'm not interested in being Christian. It's rude, and it's also bad for Christianity.

I am stunned that a leader of the modern Christian Church would say these things.

THANK YOU FOR BEING THE REAL DEAL!

In a world of thieves pandering hope for profits as TV Evalgelists, liars at the pulpit, pedophiles in robes, xenophobes and haters portraying themselves as Christian, politicians using the words of Jesus to justify control, hate, and oppression of others, a military under the control of these non and faux-christian beliefs and actions, and a Government leadership that lies in order to go to war while claiming "Christian beliefs, morals, and ethics" I never thought I'd read a column like your's.

Thank you for being the legitimate and obvious positive alternative to the fake church in TV and politics.

Proselytizing should be made a Misdemeanor and Proselytism as a core value in evangelism should be banned.

The smug people who think they're "saved" and better or better off than I am piss me off.

If I want to think that there is no god and never has been a god and that jesus was a mental patient, I'll think that.

Stay outta my face and life.

This may have be one of the most sensible explanations of our "Christian Nation" I've ever come across. I'm not a Christian, but to deny the obvious (and factual) is not what a reasonable thinker does. The majority of people forming early America (and even today) came from a Christian tradtion and whether they accepted or rejected those beliefs, these teachings impacted them.

Remember our "founding fathers" (not the small groups of religious zealots--the framers of our Consitution) understood the religous turmoil of England and Europe that caused so much bloodshed throughout the 1600's and 1700's. They wanted religion out of the political spectrum because of the chaos from that time period. No where did they say people (and politicians) can't be religious and celebrate it. They simply didn't want leaders imposing religion on its people through coercive means--and putting saying "God bless America" isn't "coercive. That's really it folks, nothing more and nothing less.

So to the people that want to eliminate religion from our culture, it's not going to happen. And to the zealots out there that think we are(or want) a pure Christian nation, it's not going to happen.

My only advice to Mr. Mohler would be stop praying we all end up Christians. That is a slippery slope to what our founding fathers feared.

Christmas in the United States for almost everyone that celebrates it means:
Love for Family and Friends
Santa
Christmas Tree
Mistletoe
Presents
Christmas Cookies
"It's a Wonderful Life"
"Jingle Bells"
Ham

Christmas does not necessarily mean:
Jesus

I won't talk about why that is, because I don't really know. But I'm part of the first group, and so are a lot of people.

The Ten Commandments are actually Babylonian in origin. The Jews adopted them and added two more to bring the count to ten.

I laugh every time I hear of some misguided Christians trying to get the Ten Commandments enshrined in their community courthouse.

If only they knew they were primarily pagan ideas!

America is a Christian nation in the same sense it is a white one -- most of its people are white (and Christian), its culture reflects overwhelmingly the values of whites (and Christians) and most of its leading citizens throughout its history have been white (and Christian).

Most people today accept that majoritarian government has been unfair to non-whites, and that limits on government (such as those in the Constitution) are necessary to prevent the majority from turning the minority into lesser citizens.

Those same limits are necessary to prevent majority religion from becoming state religion.

The Buddha had a virgin birth; Zoroaster had a virgin birth; and many so-called "pagan" gods had virgin births--hundreds if not thousands of years before Jesus. In fact, Thomas Jefferson believed the virgin birth of Jesus to be a myth.

Just because one group subscribes to one virgin birth doesn't mean that we as a nation of laws, of checks and balances should elevate that one religion in government policy-making. That would simply create a religious fascist state--something we are trying to prevent in Iraq and would do well to keep in check here.

It's amazing to me that people insist on harrassing others by ramming their religion down others throats. This is America and so what if most are Christians. This is not a theocracy (thank god) and people are free to practice (or not practice) his or her own religion. Just this week a co-worker tried to put Christmas decorations in my office. I politely declined and then she accused me of being a scrooge. It is this kind of harrassment that non-christians are bombarded with day in and day out. I do not celebrate christmas and if I don't want to participate in the trappings, it's my business and I shouldn't be made to feel like a "scrooge". So I put my children in private school so that they are no harrassed by christian children in public school. It's a shame because public areas should be free of this. And the insistence of evangelicals on school prayer and public displays is just disgusting. Put that stuff in your own house and you have 18 hours a day to pray at home or church. Give me a break.

I always wondered why folks like Josh say that the 10 commandments are the base for the world view of the founding fathers. It always seemed to me that anyone who actually READ the 10 commandments would realize this was false ... most of the things they forbid are either expressly protected by our bill or rights or are legal. The only place American law agrees with them is don't steal or kill - and every ethical system says that.

Tonio writes, "In my view, that is the whole problem - the desire by some to see others convert. And that goes for evangelists in all religions, including evangelical atheists. Why does anyone care what religious beliefs someone else holds?"

Because many religions (including Christianity) include evangelism as a fundamental part of their doctrine. In the cast of Christianity, Jesus instructs his followers to "make disciples of all nations".

So, your "hope is that every American would come to a saving knowledge of Christ?"

Now you are no longer talking about America being a nation that just happens to be populated by Christians. You want a nation where everyone will be Christian, one way or another. So you really do want a "Christian nation."

Fortunately, we have a Constitution that is supposed to prevent that. Your vision of America is frightening.

Christmas decorations are not Christian imagery! Christmas lost its original meaning even during the days of the Roman Empire, when the date was moved to coincide with Saturnalia celebrations. Today, Christmas has become a holiday embraced by the secular; it is merely a celebration of consumerism, spending, and taking time off work/school. If you honestly believe that everyone who puts up a string of lights or a Christmas tree--btw, the origin of these practices is far from Biblical--is Christian, then you are sorely mistaken.

While I agree with most of Mr. Mohler's well written essay, his assetion that, "...the worldview shared by the founders and the colonists was explicitly and unquestionably Christian." is not correst. Their world view was based on biblical truths such as the 10 commandments, which were the bedrock of the Jewish faith for thousands of years before the rise of Christianity

"Why does anyone care what religious beliefs someone else holds?"

I don't think concern over another's beliefs needs to be sinister. I have simply found so much peace and happiness with Christ that, speaking for myself, I would hope that every person would experience the same.

I'm certain it is not so innocent with some people, but I see nothing inherently wrong with evangelism. If done with respect, evangelism (of any stripe) only threatens those with a tenuous hold on their faith. Most others simply see evangelism as an honest attepmpt to bring happiness.

PJ Tibayan says:

"That is Tonio trying to convert us to not care about the religious beliefs of others. He is an evangelical religious pluralist. I wonder if he sees that his comment silences himself?"

It doesn't silence him, and that's a sophomoric comment.

What Tonio was saying is that religion should be personal and not shoved down one anothers' throats.

What part of the concept "mind your own business" is PJ Tibayan having trouble with? Pretty basic concept.

I agree with Dr. Mohler and am glad for the clear articulation of the distinction between Christian nation and a nation of Christians. Many Christians get this wrong.

Tonio (comment 2) said: "In my view, that is the whole problem - the desire by some to see others convert. And that goes for evangelists in all religions, including evangelical atheists. Why does anyone care what religious beliefs someone else holds?"

That is Tonio trying to convert us to not care about the religious beliefs of others. He is an evangelical religious pluralist. I wonder if he sees that his comment silences himself?

Neutrality is a myth, and the sooner one sees it the more self-aware and fair he can be in the discussions at hand.

Yeah, most of us are sorta vaguely imbued with concepts that those full of religiousity believe extend only from their particular view of Christ.
And a Santa Claus commercialized Christmas is adequate evidence of that.

When it comes to religious symbolism, we should distinguish between government property such as a courthouse, and public property such as a town square.

In the case of the former, no sectarian symbolism belongs in spaces open to the public. I believe that was the principle behind the Supreme Court's ruling on Roy Moore's monument. But civil servants can post their own symbols in their own offices or workplaces.

In the case of the latter, all religions should be invited to place whatever displays they want. If some religions don't accept the invitation, that's not the government's problem. Personally, I would love to see a town square with a Nativity, a Muslim star and crescent, a menorah, a Wiccan pentagram, and perhaps an atomic symbol for atheism.

"Nevertheless, the worldview shared by the founders and the colonists was explicitly and unquestionably Christian."

That may or may not be true, but if it was, it doesn't mean that one religion's worldview is objectively better or more valid than any other religion's worldview. I would say the same if the founders' worldview was Hindu or Confucian.

"But, as a believer in Jesus Christ, my hope is that every American would come to a saving knowledge of Christ."

In my view, that is the whole problem - the desire by some to see others convert. And that goes for evangelists in all religions, including evangelical atheists. Why does anyone care what religious beliefs someone else holds?

Well put.