Is the USA a Christian nation or is it just another world power?

[Gregory Matthews]

So, if that was true in 1892, does that meant that it is true today? I believe that the opinion of the court was an opinion of a time in 1892. I do not believe that it was a statement that it would always be a Christian nation.

We often do the same thing with EGW. We often take a specific statement that she made to a specific time and place, and attempt to generalize it to all times and places, instead of loking for the principle.

Allow me to give you a true example. It can be demonstrated that EGW told one woman that she should have a red dress to wear. A Bible teacher in my son's Bible class told the class that EGWs statement was a command to all women, everywhere, in all times, to have a red dress to wear!

Folks, EGW was a woman of reason, regardless of how we often attempt to protray her as unreasonable.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." --THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

---

In what way is the USA Christian?

[Bravus]

I think there was some sense in the distinctions. A 'Christian nation' might be:

1. One in which a majority of people are practicing Christians.

2. One in which the majority of people are nominal Christians.

3. One with Christians leaders.

4. One in which Christianity has had a siginificant influence on the legal framework.

I'd say the US used to have 1 but is probably closer to 2 now, and that that will increase for a while then it too will go away as there are less Christians and more atheists and people of other faiths. 3 is arguable (remember, by leaders I'm talking about more than just the president). I think 4 is the case to some extent but that's changing.

But a more difficult and realistic depiction is:

5. A nation that demonstrates the nature of Christ in its dealings with the world.

Maybe that's even an unrealistic standard, but I believe it's what it would take to be a truly Christian nation. That would mean things like a real concern for the poor and the sick, and a tendency not to place its own interests at the fore all the time.

Without some sort of working definition of the term, it's easy just to fall into 'yes it is', 'no it isn't' discussions based on opinion.

If having a 'Christian nation' means it's intolerant to people of other faiths, then perhaps it's better not to have one. A Christian nation would be welcoming to everyone - at least in my opinion.

[Guest]

Quote:

---

Rev 17:9 Here

is the mind which has wisdom.

The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits....

Where be dat?

---

==========================================

Robert are you aware that there is a difference between "hills" & "mountains"??? The 7 mountians are in Jerusalem!!! This is where "the man of sin" will have his throne at the end.

Mt. Goath, Mt. Gareb, Mt. Acra, Mt. Bezetha, Mt. Zion, Mt. Ophel, and Mt. Moriah.

=====================================

Our generation of Adventist authors have repeated the same memory work that another generation used to bring in new converts without even cracking their bibles open. The saying that Adventist were guilt of years ago was "people of the book" was reffering to the KJV, today "people of the book" means slick shinny book cover and magizine articles which in most cases is absent of plain bible instruction. The "7 mountains" is not Rome's 7 hills, just think of all the ink & paper [worse than wasted} that Adventism has used over the years to scatter this confusion.

[bevin]

Quote:

---

In what way is the USA Christian?

---

It makes life difficult for its non-christian citizens, and attacks nations that claim to be non-christian.

What more evidence could you want?

/Bevin

[Robert]

1. One in which a majority of people are practicing Christians.

I understand your meaning, but does the Bible back this concept? We are saved as individuals and not nations.

2. One in which the majority of people are nominal Christians.

Maybe....

3. One with Christians leaders.

Maybe, but I know politicians will claim just about anything to get a vote.

4. One in which Christianity has had a significant influence on the legal framework.

Christian principles? To me much of our legal framework is based on the old covenant...not the NC.

[Robert]

Quote:

---

Robert are you aware that there is a difference between "hills" & "mountains"??? The 7 mountains are in Jerusalem!!! This is where "the man of sin" will have his throne at the end.

---

Okay...give me some info...

Is the "man of sin" representative of the Papacy?

[Bravus]

I take your points, Robert, with no offense or anything - I was just kicking ideas out there. So, do you have another criterion that *would* establish what is a 'Christian nation'? Or do you maintain (as I'm coming to suspect) that 'there ain't no such animal'?

[Robert]

Quote:

---

I take your points, Robert, with no offense or anything - I was just kicking ideas out there. So, do you have another criterion that *would* establish what is a 'Christian nation'? Or do you maintain (as I'm coming to suspect) that 'there ain't no such animal'?

---

I believe that there are Christians in America, but to say it is a Christian nation, well, I just don't know!?! Besides I don't trust numbers....The Jews were supposedly God's people, yet the majority of these nice church people killed God....

You guys keep posting and I'll keep thinking....

[jasd]

>>So, if that was true in 1892, does that meant that it is true today?<<

Quote:

---

"This was a

unanimous

decision and has [:"red"]never been reversed[/]."

---

It is still by law, by right --de jure. It is by de facto exercise of power neither legal nor rightfully established, _legislating from the bench_, for example, that one sees being established --govt by precedent; the nullity of right where there is neither timely nor vigorous defense of it, an abdication to the ‘exercise of power neither legal nor rightfully established’, as it were.

(Of course, I am only putting forward that, as I perceive it to be; being neither advocate nor scholar upon the matter.)

I addressed the question Is the USA a Christian nation…? [ed.] It was not my intent to expand upon nuances of the term, which, as Bravus points out, there are multiples of nuance…

>>Folks, EGW was a woman of reason, regardless of how we often attempt to protray her as unreasonable.<<

She adeptly handled a quill. She was reasonable, she was intolerant, she was inspired, and she was misguided. Some take her as prophetess, others as pastoral. Either way, de jure or de facto, she is to be admired. [/opinion]

[Pockey]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Quote:</font><hr />

Quick Reply Window:

"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." --THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

in

HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. THE UNITED STATES

143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226

February 29, 1892

"This was a unanimous decision and has never been reversed."

<hr /></blockquote><font class="post">

This is very interesting. I had no idea they actually stated this.

[jasd]

>>This is very interesting. I had no idea they actually stated this.<<

Additionally, I propose that though one might parse much of Writ having to do with the old city Jerusalem, there is in contradistinction, [another] Jerusalem (America) of prophecy (no, not the evil empire of Darth Two Horns) as well, the third Jerusalem --of the descent: Revelation. There appears to be --three ‘cities’ Jerusalem in Writ.

Addendum:

America-as-Xtian has been experiencing, unremittingly, severe duress and neglect --as to bring it to such secularism and plurality, as seems to obtain today, that

there is currently being bruited from the hoi polloi --to that, which might pass for the more ‘noble’ amongst us, _‘civil war’_, if not that, then calamitous and widespread chaos. [/surmise on the half] ;-)

Fill your pantry, in haste.

[Gregory Matthews]

************************************************************************************************************************

Quick Reply Window:

"These and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation." --THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

in

HOLY TRINITY CHURCH v. THE UNITED STATES

143 U.S. 457, 12 S.Ct. 511, 36 L.Ed. 226

February 29, 1892

"This was a unanimous decision and has never been reversed."

************************************************************************************************************************

Yesterday, April 23, 2005, I attended the Sabbath School class that I normally attend. It is an alternative one that often discusses subjects unrelated to the lesson study. The individual presenting the class gave us a 36 page document that had 5 sentences related to the Holy Trinity case.

Those 5 sentences stimulated me to decide to research Holy Trinity to see what the facts were. You see, it is a controversal case. It has been claimed that no such case exists, and it is an entirely a made-up rulling by people who are not honest, as well as many other charges either for or against it.

Well, I decided to reasearch it. As the law, and courts, interest me, I have an account with a firm typically used by lawyers that provides them with leagal research in regard to court rullings. So, I knew I could obtain a copy of the ruling, if it existed, if I wanted to pay their fee. But, I also knew that I could use some free servcies. That I did, and here are my conclusions, stated in question and answer form:

1) Is Holy Trinity an actual case:

Yes, it is. The date for the ruling is February 29, 1892.

2) Some have stated that Holy Trinity has been used in 80+ other legal cases. Other have stated that it has never been used as a basis of a legal ruling by the United States Supreme Court.

Holy Trinity has been used about 3 times as part of a ruling by the U. S. Supreme Court. One of these involved prostitution! In cases decided in 1982 and 1983 Justice Brennan severely criticized the statement by Justice Brewer in the Holy Trinity case.

It has been referenced in other cases (80 or so), but not in a manner in which the "Christian nation" comments were part of the ruling.

3. Is it true that Holy Trinity has never been reversed?

Both yes and no. That question is not fairly worded.

Yes, it is true that it has never been reversed. Holy Trinity was an immigration case. It decided, on the basis of immigration law whether or not a church in the U.S. could hire a pastor who was a citizen of another country. Immigration law made that illegal. Holy Trinity reversed the decision of the lower court, and allowed the church to hire such a person.

The above was the ruling of the U. S. Supreme Court. There were no issues before the Court as to whether or not the United States was a Christian nation. As this was not an issue, there was no decision that the U. S. was a Christian nation. Therefore, there is no decision to reverse.

No, the statement that it has never been reversed is faulty. Justice Brennan writing in 1982 and 1983 seriously criticized Justice Brewer who wrote the Holy Trinity decision. Here is Justice Brennans's comment in the 1983 case: "By insisting that such a distinctively sectarian message is merely an unobjectionable part of our 'religiouis heritage,' the Court takes a long step backwards to the days when Justice Brewer could arrogantly declare for the Court that 'this is a Christian nation.' Those days, I had thought, were forever put behind us . . ." Some claim that this is essentially a legal reversal.

The reality is that the Holy Trinity decision was worded in a manner that the "Christian nation" comment is not a decision. Therefore it cannot be reversed, and has not been. But, if the Court ever tried a case in which the issue was whether or not the USA was a Christian nation, it might rule either way. That is speculative.

4. Are you telling us that Justice Brewer clearly stated that the U.S.A. was/is a Christian nation.

No, I am not. In 1910, Justice Brewer, writing in a private publication (not a legal ruling) stated that he believed that the U.S.A. was culturally a Christian nation, but that it was not a a religious Christian nation.

This idea is acutally reflected in the published Holy Trinity ruling. Justice Brewer gives a historical background to the founding of the United States of America, beginning in the 1500s. In his comments on history he states several times that the purpose was religious. It is clear that he gave legal rights to Islamics (he uses the word "Mahomet") and followers of the "Grand Lama". As these are not Christian religions, one might fairly see a broader religious application, rather than simply Christian.

Yet, he does refer to Christianity, in more than one place. The result of all of this is that one can not be 100% certain, as to what he meant. As I read these individual statements, I believe that Justice Brewer was referencing common Christian statements, found in the law in the 1800s, rather than making a Supreme Court ruling. But, that can be argued.

My conclusion: The Holy Trinity case exists. However, people who claim it as a ruling by the US Supreme Court that the USA was/is a Christian nation is an overstatement. It is not a ruling. But, the attacks on it are also overstated. It is uncertain today as to what Justice Brewer actually believed. In any case, Holy Trinity can not be used to state that the USA is a Christian nation.

Just my thinking.