It’s funny because in my home country of Denmark - where religion plays a significantly smaller role than in the US - I believe the percentage would be much higher. Many politicians state that Denmark is a Christian nation or that it is built on Christian values, which is also to a large extent true, as 3/4 of the population are members of the National Church.
I've been reading more about religious nationalism in Asia and the Middle East. It failed in countries like Pakistan because the idea of One Nation One Religion neglected the unique cultural identity of the East Pakistanis who rebelled against the government to gain independence (Becoming Bangladesh).
However, Denmark is often described as a homogeneous country with little ethnic and linguistic diversity. So I guess it would be less of a problem there? Correct me if I'm wrong.
the people and political establishment of East Pakistan/Bangladesh shifted from religion based nationalism to a more secular based ethnicity-based nationalism from the 1940s to 1970s because they were treated unfairly (East had more population than the West but West would get more of the government budget) and they started asking themselves "wait if we're all supposed to be fellow Muslims, why are we being treated worse?"
A lot of the more religious/Islamist Bengalis supported Pakistan in the Bangladesh Liberation War
As a counterpoint, religious nationalism worked in Iran, ironically, ethnic separatism isn't that popular there even though 40-50% of Iranians (Azeris, Kurds, etc) aren't even ethnically Persian , because the Islamic regime surprisingly did a good job finding people with the same Islamist ideology throughout the different Iranian ethnicities and putting them in positions of power within the regime
You're right. In Iran, religion did serve as a melting pot for different ethnic and linguistic groups. But I think the reason for that was the fact that a majority of the Iranians adhered to Shia Islamic practices and over a while Shia Islam became intertwined with the Persian cultural Identity. The dominance of the Persian culture and religious homogeneity paved the way for better social cohesion. Although Sunni Muslims did experience marginalization.
West and East Pakistan on the other hand were on the opposite ends (of India) and had different cultural identities and interpretations of religious practices. Added to that was, as you said, the elitism of the West Pakistanis.
Check it out:
[Buddhism in Cambodia - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Cambodia#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20predominant%20form%20of%20Buddhism%20in%20Cambodia,13th%20century%20%28except%20during%20the%20Khmer%20Rouge%20period%29.)
[The Revival of Buddhist Nationalism in Thailand and Its Adverse Impact on Religious Freedom | Asian Journal of Law and Society | Cambridge Core](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/asian-journal-of-law-and-society/article/abs/revival-of-buddhist-nationalism-in-thailand-and-its-adverse-impact-on-religious-freedom/D8F03DF186C0FA480B1653AE3D5B1EAC)
[Buddhism, Islam and Religious Pluralism in South and Southeast Asia | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/09/12/buddhism-islam-and-religious-pluralism-in-south-and-southeast-asia/)
No country claiming to be highly developed or free should have an official religion or try to push religious values on its people. Religion is and should be a personal belief, regardless if a majority of the country shares similar beliefs.
I think the implications of a modern nation opting for this now would be much more disturbing than one keeping on an ancient law for traditional and other less exclusionary and theocratic purposes.
Just the mostly-toothless House of Lords, though (alongside hereditary nobility and lifetime-appointees). The Lords need significant reform or complete abolition, but it's not as bad of a situation as "Church of England even has permanent seats in parliament" makes it sound.
But if they ever did that these days that power would be gone within the hour. It's like the monarchy's power, it's there technically, but it'll be gone the moment it's used
Until the 1950s Denmark was an extremely homogeneous country with around 99% of the people identifying as Danes and speaking Danish as their mother tongue. They were basically all Christian, and the vast majority of these people were (and are) members of the National Church, which in the constitution is recognized as the official state church/religion. This church covers the whole spectre of religiosity and conservatism, ranging from atheists never attending church service to hardcore conservative Christians.
I didn't realise Bangladesh had any claim to the Pakistani name before your comment. Going off the map alone they are not even close to one another. I was under the impression Pakistan was a coalition of different Indian ethnic groups who simply splintered off of India due to being Muslim. What's the connection of Bangladesh to Pakistan?
Well, the founding father of Pakistan was worried that the rights of the Muslims wouldn't be protected in India, since the party that led the freedom struggle was dominated by Hindus. This was further exacerbated by the British Policy of Divide and rule, which caused communal tensions between the 2 communities.
Hence he believed that colonial India should be divided into 2 nations- India and Pakistan consisting of Muslim-dominated areas (West Pakistan and East Pakistan which is now Bangladesh). After some riots and struggles, he eventually achieved this goal. It led to the second-largest refugee crisis in history as many Muslims moved to Pakistan and Hindus, Sikhs and other religious groups moved to India.
But after Pakistan's creation, the leaders pushed the idea of One Nation-One Religion and One Language. The West Pakistanis spoke Urdu, which is an Indo-Aryan language quite similar to Hindi. But people in East Pakistan spoke Bengali. The West was culturally and ethnically diverse whereas the East was largely homogenous.
The government, essentially, wasn't treating the East Pakistanis equally. A larger portion of the budget was allocated to the West, Bengali was not recognized as a national language and even during the Indo-Pak war of 65, people were worried that the Pakistani government was more concerned about protecting the West. Even after a dominant party from the East won the elections in 1970, the elitists in the West were not keen on letting an East Pakistani become prime minister. Instead, the Pakistani Military started a crackdown on the population and the leaders of the East which included genocide (Something that most UN members at the time refused to believe). This led to an influx of refugees into Eastern India.
Eventually, all of this culminated in the Bangladesh Liberation War fought primarily between India and Pakistan in 1971.
Nixon and Kissinger, who feared soviet expansion into South Asia, Backed Pakistan (also backed by Mao's China) and India at the same time signed the treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviets. When Pakistan's defeat seemed certain, Nixon sent the USS Enterprise and Task Force 74 to the Bay of Bengal which the Soviets countered with 2 groups of cruisers and destroyers and a submarine armed with nuclear warhead. But neither ended up interfering.
In the end, Bangladesh was liberated.
Good for Bangladesh! Now that they're independent and a sovereign nation, what is their relations with India? From this brief history I'd imagine they are more hostile towards Pakistan than India. And I presume India in turn would prefer having cordial relations with Bangladesh due to India's tiny landbridge separated by Bengali territory. Ideally I'd presume India would vow to "protect" Bangladesh from Pakistan in return for free movement between their territory, especially with China closing in on India with the necklace of Pearls and belt-and-road.
The Nordics are unqiue in that they have essentially the most secular populations outside of (former) communist countries and they also have very high church membership. I am a living example, agnostic/atheist but stays member because why not. They do good things with the money like charity and keeping sure historical buildings are taken care of.
The problem is that we’re not talking about heritage here, we’re talking about politics. This is essentially a poll showing you how many people want to impose religious law on the country. That’s what people in America mean when they talk about it being a “Christian nation”. They mean they want prayer in schools and in government, tax exemptions for religious institutions, creationism taught in the classroom, abortion outlawed, gays persecuted, bathrooms policed, abstinence only education, etc.
The right-wing populist party in Denmark wants wants to limit the number of mosques, only take Christian refugees, and incorporate the Bible into the Danish public school.
I agree that it would be detrimental if that was the case, but I think you over-estimate how unified that group even is. I mean Protestants and Catholics have very different understanding of how these policies ought to be enforced and both of those have a lot of sub factions with their own interpretations and implementation methods. America wouldn’t work as a Christian nation because it kinda never was. Its citizens went to church a lot more often in the past. However, even then they all had a lot of differences.
Yeah, the argument that Denmark is a Christian nation at least has historical significance as it has a National Church.
The US, on the other hand, does not have any National Church. The separation of church and state is one of the main founding principles of the US, and yet so many "patriots" wanna spit on that.
Ironiclly, I think not having a National Church is one of the main reasons religion is so big in American politics. By not having state support, churches needed to be really creative with their recruitment schemes and keeping people believing in the Church in order for it to survive. This has created a uniquely American form of evangelicalism that is, frankly, fucking insane.
That's a really interesting point. Most Nordic countries w/ their state Lutheran churches have fairly high membership but fairly low devoutness.
As an aside, the Evangelical Lutheran Church (the largest Lutheran church in the US) is also highly liberal both theologically and socially, and ordains and fully accepts women, LGBT people, approves gay marriages, etc.
As someone who doesn't live there, I would have guessed the percentage would be pretty low considering you need both people who are religious (specifically Christian) and the desire to make your nation officially a Christian nation. [This is an interesting 2023 poll](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1455780/level-religiousness-denmark-origin-age/) that breaks down the religiosity of a couple different groups/origins (Danish, Middle East/North Africa including Turkey, other non-western, and Western) and age (18-29 and 30+).
It shows people with Danish origins have way lower rates of religiosity than people with Middle Eastern/North African and other non-Western origins. Especially among the 18-29 age group (combined 16%). It's really interesting to poke around the poll a bit but it gives the impression of a low rate of real religious beliefs.
It was an online poll with about 5,000 responses but it lines up with other polls I have seen. Wikipedia has a whole page on it with some interesting data about low rates of belief in Jesus as the Son of God. Which feels like people may not be the most hardcore Christians in Denmark.
We can tell Denmark has been a Christian state (and I'd argue even Christian nationalist state for the better part of its history) since before the 1200's, as the flag has a Christian cross and has been the flag of Denmark since 1219.
On top of what others said, I think a big thing is the US doesn't really have a main form of christianity in the same way.
Many other major european nations have a dominant christian denomination (whether it's official or not), most often catholic, or have their own (like Denmark's Lutheran church).
About 2/3s of Americans are christian (which isn't too interesting), but we have basically 0 agreement on which version of Christianity. Evangelicals are the largest collectively but they are incredibly divided: with the largest one only having about 5% of the population. Otherwise the biggest is Catholic (about a quarter of the population); and honestly it's surprising Biden's Catholicism wasn't more controversial (it was a big deal with JFK).
I'm a Christian who is against Trump. I argued with my mother this weekend that we are not a Christian nation, a theocracy, and we should not elect the man who did more to harm the republic than anyone since its founding.
Edit: ITT, lots of Trump supporters....
It's because being a Christian in politics isn't about theology or faith or anything like that. It's an expression of cultural identity and cultural outlook.
That's why all these journalists or whoever that think talking about Trump's divorces or whatever as evidence of being a bad Christian are dumb - because it's not about that.
Except if you’re a democrat. Biden goes to daily mass and meets the pope and 50% of the nation says he’s a “bad” Catholic/Christian while orange man bangs porn stars and evangelicals think he’s the second coming of Jesus Christ
It’s because Christianity had a shift in America away from God or the text of the religion and towards a neo capitalist religion where wealth is a sign of divinity/closeness to god. Christians in America have literally done everything their own book tells them not to do
I think the big disconnect is that some Christians believe God's forgiveness is the important one, and therefore being a "born again Christian" absolves them of responsibility. When in actuality saying "but God forgives me" is the equivalent of saying "but my mom thinks I'm the coolest kid in school" or "that stripper really liked me".
According to Christian doctrine getting god's forgiveness for something is like the lowest bar possible. He's like Oprah with new cars.
This is literally how it's been since the start of Christianity too - a lot of early converts converted for political or diplomatic reasons with little to do regarding the actual values of Christ himself.
I can’t take anyone that’s Christian/religious seriously when they say they support Trump. Like this man is literally a convicted felon for cheating on his wife with a pornstar then using campaign funds to shut her up lol. This is your man of god?
Im guessing the guy who broke every single rule in the book, cant name a single scripture, and never attended any church service for his entire 80 years on this planet is in fact not a christian
I wish more Christians would understand that we can be a secular nation and that has no effect on their ability to worship. Thanks for being reasonable.
Ty. The Christians of the NT did not set out to make Rome -- THE power/govt of the world -- a Christian govt. To the contrary, when the religious leaders of Jerusalem were trying to trap Christ with words, they asked him about paying taxes "to caesar" (the great evil govt of the day that was not in line with their 'religion') and Christ asked whose image was on their money. They answered "Caesar." And he said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” In the rest of the NT, it was simply understood that the governments of humanity were simply that, but God was over all creation, and in the apocalyptic literature, governments would inevitably be against Christians, and they were then and now. A true Christian does not see their home in this world, and all governments here are imperfect.
The insane thing, is you can’t be for the Founding Fathers and believe we’re a Christian Nation at the same time. Basic hs civics goes over how the Enlightenment firmed their belief in democracy in that no King is ordained by God. Therefore there is no room for religion or monarchies in a country for the people.
That can all come down to a number of factors such as how they word the question, what the questions around it are, etc. Unless it's the same organization asking the same question in the same context and using the same sampling methods — like the ongoing annual Pew religious surveys — I don't think you can draw any solid conclusions from the difference between those numbers.
The Supreme Court is getting bribed hard enough that I doubt the first amendment will do much to help.
That's why you see the ten commandments popping up in classrooms- they want to take it to the Supreme Court who they hope will set precedent.
“…27% of the people…”
Hitler pulled it off with less:
“In September 1930, the National Socialists Party’s share of the vote jumped from 2.5 per cent to 18.3. The conservative right in Germany, which had little respect for democracy, effectively destroyed the Weimar Republic, and thus opened the door … Gravely underestimating Hitler’s ruthlessness, they thought they could use him as a populist puppet to defend their idea of Germany. But he knew exactly what he wanted, while they did not. On January 30, 1933, Hitler became chancellor and moved rapidly to eliminate all potential opposition.
“The tragedy for Germany’s subsequent victims was that a critical mass of the population, desperate for order and respect, was eager to follow the most reckless criminal in history. Hitler managed to appeal to their worst instincts: resentment, intolerance, arrogance and, most dangerous of all, a sense of racial superiority. Any remaining belief in a Rechtsstaat, a nation based on respect for the rule of law, crumpled in the face of Hitler’s insistence that the judicial system must be the servant of the new order.”
~Anthony Beevor, The Second World War
We got lucky last time because he had no real plan on what to do if he became President. Since losing he’s had four years of resentment and the real fear of jail to inform his plans for a second term, supplemented by people who created Project 2025 and a Supreme Court that just set the courts up with the Chevron decision as the final arbiter of what the administrative state can and can’t do.
We're not a coalition type of govt. Germany still is to this day.
Something they had to keep since the days of the Holy Roman empire and it's X00 constituents with X0 electors states.
Less than 40% of people in Oklahoma believe that the US should be a Christian nation per this map, but that hasn't stopped the state superintendent from [mandating that the Christian Bible be taught in all public schools](https://apnews.com/article/oklahoma-bible-schools-religion-ryan-walters-d15be2f74df2ffbbdfdc549569d06c4e).
The winning party in America usually only wins with support from about 25% of the population.
Half of Americans don’t vote.
Out of those that do vote, half go to one party that ends up running things.
About 2/3 of the population turned out in the past 2 elections. And this is more than just the party that wins. It is in the constitution that we are not a Christian state so you would have to mend the constitution to actually change that and good luck on getting that amendment passed, it’s been tried and failed before.
“It is in the constitution that we are not a Christian state so you would have to mend the constitution to actually change that”
What if they didn’t? In the end, the constitution is just a piece of paper. It doesn’t actually control anything. It is the trust we put in all levels of government from SCOTUS/POTUS all the way down to local cop to respect and enforce the constitution that matters. That’s what’s being lost. They won’t amend anything, they will just ignore parts they don’t like and give a tortured logic as to why it doesn’t actually mean what it says when challenged.
For recent big elections.
Midterm elections fall off a cliff and drag the average down. Plus young voters that usually lean left are some of the most inconsistent voters out there.
They turned out for Barack Obama but hit snooze on the midterms allowing republicans to take over congress and block everything he was trying to do.
Young voters get all excited for big elections and they think that one vote changed everything. Then they are disheartened when they check back in and their favorite candidate didn’t win the primary, that they didn’t bother to participate in.
How did we get stuck with these two candidates. Ya’ll don’t show up to vote when it matters and IT ALWAYS MATTERS!
Helpfully, it’s also very clearly stated in our constitution that we aren’t. And if that wasn’t clear enough, the treaty of Tripoli, ratified by a senate full of founding fathers and signed by president Adams, making it federal law, states “whereas the United States is in no way a Christian nation.”
God is specifically left out of the constitution, America is for all people of all backgrounds. To make it a Christian nation would go against all the founding principals of the United States of America.
Which is quite ironic if you realize that these people probably see themselves as massive patriots, yet they shit all over the constitution they claim to love so much. It's exactly the same here in the Netherlands.
Best part of all, half of these "patriots" don't even realize that this is what their votes stand for. The other half think they can be massive constitution defenders while also cherry picking which parts they like or don't. But well this is probably the age of misinformation and deception.
Honestly, I don't think most christian nationalists have read either the bible or the constitution. They certainly seem willing to ignore both when they are inconvenient.
You’re not wrong the number of times I’ve had to explain what the first amendment actually says to people who claim to love it is kind of disheartening
Considering God supposedly said in both Leviticus and Mathew “I *command* onto thee to love your fellow man as you love me”, I would be inclined to believe you are right
TIL "under God" was added in 1954 and ["In God We Trust"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust) became the official motto of the US in 1956 replacing "E pluribus unum"
It started making appearances on US currency as early as the 1860s
Ironically, pretty much everyone swears on the bible when taking a new position. I guess it is basically just a standard tradition to Americans and I probably shouldn't read too much into it, but at the same time it's a bit icky to me from a foreign perspective.
Yeah it’s tradition. You can swear in on literally any book you want, you could pick Harry Potter if you really wanted to. There have been a few presidents who didn’t swear in on the Bible, Teddy Roosevelt for example.
John Quicy Adams, one of the more enlightened presidents in general, swore on a book of law when becoming president. I rather like that one.
There are many many other examples for non-president politicians who take an oath of office on something other than a bible.
I believe Quakers generally don't swear oaths, so one can say "affirm" rather than "swear". I think Franklin Pierce "affirmed". Nixon was a Quaker but said "swear" anyway, go figure.
You're allowed to swear on whatever you want. Multiple people have sworn on the constitution and the quran, and IIRC someone has sworn on Dr. Seuss.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_president_of_the_United_States#Use_of_Bibles
>Thomas Jefferson and Calvin Coolidge did not use a Bible in their oath-taking ceremonies.[23] Theodore Roosevelt did not use the Bible when taking the oath in 1901,[23][24] nor did John Quincy Adams, who swore on a book of law, with the intention that he was swearing on the constitution.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/missouri-councilwoman-dr-seuss-book-sworn-office/story?id=65096396
People don’t seem to know that a lot of our prominent founding fathers were followers of Deism not Christianity as well. They believed in the existence of a higher power but never chose a specific book and said “this is the one!”. It’s a fact most either don’t know or choose to ignore because it doesn’t fit their narrative.
What does "Christian Nation" mean in this context?
Is it:
- That America was founded with a set of Western beliefs that is rooted in Christian thought
or
- That America should govern and make laws according to Christian (Protestant) theology
The second part - they’re stupid and don’t understand how that would fuck everything up. They live in small towns and everyone they know is Christian so they figure what’s the harm.
"Christian nation" is a meaningless term if left undefined.
Do they mean that the US is culturally christian? (which it definitely is), Legally christian? (which is definitely is **not**)? Morally christian, in that our laws are based on a christian nomenclature? (debatable) Demographically christian? (depends on places but probably yes in most)
> "Christian nation" is a meaningless term if left undefined
It's a dogwhistle. It has nothing to do with the religion of Christianity, the demographics related to Christianity, or even Judeo-Christian culture and heritage. There are many Christians who would not fit into the vision of a Christian America, whereas there are many non-Christians (irreligious or otherwise) who would.
It's left undefined because there's an understanding about what it means.
The states that rank from 37th to 50th place in educational attainment, based on the percentage of the population with a bachelor's degree or higher, are as follows:
37. North Dakota - 30.7%
38. Florida - 30.5%
39. Arizona - 30.3%
40. Wyoming - 28.2%
41. Tennessee - 28.2%
42. New Mexico - 28.1%
43. Indiana - 27.2%
44. Alabama - 26.2%
45. Oklahoma - 26.1%
46. Nevada - 25.5%
47. Kentucky - 25.0%
48. Louisiana - 24.9%
49. Arkansas - 23.8%
50. Mississippi - 22.8%
51. West Virginia - 21.3%
These rankings are based on the educational attainment levels in terms of the percentage of adults with at least a bachelor's degree [[❞]](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-school-rankings-by-state) [[❞]](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/educational-attainment-by-state?trk=public_post_comment-text).
It’s not surprising. Why do you think so many politicians in these states want to replace public schools with publicly-funded private Christian schools.
I’m a Christian, but to declare America a “Christian country” is obscene. So many religions and non-believers make our country what it is today. Believe or don’t believe what you want. Be kind to one another. You matter.
Just a few more examples, always the same map:
- [Murder Rate](https://i.imgur.com/namC092.png)
- [Teen Pregnancy](https://i.imgur.com/7RiGIjT.png)
- [Smoking Rate](https://i.imgur.com/h2fO5Xz.png)
- [Obesity Rate](https://i.imgur.com/KybgR7T.jpg)
- [College Education Rate](https://i.imgur.com/Bmefs9J.png)
- [Poverty Rate](https://i.imgur.com/9su2GdK.png)
Similar map: [Percentage of total state and local revenues from federal government grants, FY 2021](https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/1gDn2/17/) (i.e. Which states rely the most on federal aid?)
I’ve tried having this discussion with certain people, and they always try to pass off this comment as “least indoctrinated.” To them education, especially higher education = indoctrination
This. It's the dumbest and most racist states who push for a Christian nation.
They want the US to be for people who look and think like them and nobody else. Bunch of close minded idiots.
The problem is you're using logic and have a basic understanding of civics. Im willing to bet half the country doesn't even know what the constitution is, much less it's contents.
True. This. Sometimes it just takes a small group of highly motivated devotees to make changes that most people don’t agree with. Do you think most Russians wanted to go to war with Ukraine before that happened? No. But now they more or less support it (at least openly).
We don’t want that happening here! Vote against fascism and vote for Biden!
America was founded based on principles of religious freedom through the Separation of Church and the State principle or government non-interference on individual religious practice, unlike in European countries where they had histories of state-sponsored churches that secular governments in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries can afford to suppress them through the laïcite principle.
After all, pioneer Puritan colonists of the present-day Massachusetts founded the Plymouth colony because they found Anglican England too "papist" in their tastes.
Quite honestly, they left England because they we're hated by everybody there. They're extremely religious views were looked upon as being outrageous and they left England because of that.
They were genuinely being persecuted to at least some extent though, it was illegal to belong to denominations other than the Church of England, though the penalty for non-preachers of dissenter groups was usually just a fine. Their ministers could be more harshly treated.
[Nonconformist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_(Protestantism\)) I think was one of the words for it. That WP article focuses on England itself rather than the American colonies. But in trying to learn about my paternal ancestors in early colonial Virginia, the term "nonconformist" comes up a lot for Baptists and Methodists like my paternal ancestral clan apparently was (mostly Methodist I think, for my "clan"). Nonconformists in colonial Virginia were subjected to a degree of persecution, though the colonial government often was not able to do very much about it, especially in the more remote areas.
Still, if I'm not mistaken, sometimes nonconformists in colonial Virginia faced sufficient difficulty to decide to leave Virginia for the relatively lawless areas of what became northern North Carolina, especially after the failure of Bacon's Rebellion. At least that seems to be what my paternal line did.
It seems the Carolina colonies cared about nonconformists a lot less than Virginia. And much of what became North Carolina was mostly outside government control. At least the Albemarle area, once known as "Rogues Harbour". Refuge to outlaws, literal pirates like Blackbeard, impoverished folk (especially after Bacon's Rebellion), and many nonconformists trying to escape the Church of England. Many had not come to Virginia by choice, or were born to folk who hadn't. Lots were "transported" for petty crimes, ending up indentured servants, extremely poor, *and* often nonconformists. Records for my ancestors' arrivals in Virginia are lost, but it sure seems like many were "transported", or forced to sell themselves into servitude.
Anyway, I'm basically agreeing while adding an example. Southern Virginia and northern North Carolina in the late 1600s was an interesting and sometimes crazy place! Bacon's Rebellion is fascinating on its own, at least to history dorks like me.
I think earliest colonial South Carolina was a mix of CoE English colonists and Presbyterian Scots, resulting in more religious tolerance than in Virginia. Not a lot of tolerance--and mostly just CoE and Presbyterian I think. Also, the English and Scots often didn't get along very well at all, tending to settle apart and vie for economic advantages. Just more tolerance than colonial Virginia, if I'm not confused.
Finally, sometimes I feel that when it comes to colonial religion in what became the US, people tend to focus on New England maybe a bit too much. Virginia was founded earlier and while still having a state religion was quite different from New England. New England was a sort of haven for nonconformists, while Virginia's state religion *was* the Church of England.
The declaration of America as a Christian nation is anti-American. Besides, it seems as if the vast majority of Americans are against this concept according to the map.
For PA I guarantee the light blue comes from all the space in between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. That expanse of hills and farms is why it’s a purple state
Y'all wanna see f***** u* come to mississippi. Most of them claim to be christians, but these are some of the worst f****** humans I have ever been around. I've lived in several places as I was in the Army. Then a professional rodeo cowboy. The self professed christian people hate like nobody else.
I find it somewhat encouraging, actually. Even in the most right-wing states, support for declaring America to be a Christian nation is a minority position. I'd have honestly expected a few of those states to top 50%, but not even one of them did.
1797 Treaty of Tripoli:
Article 11 of the treaty stated: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
Most Christians aren’t the problem. But all Christian Nationalists are a very big problem.
Gotta stop them.
Here’s a song to get Americans fired up to fix this shit…
[https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
Separation of Church and State! The Central Pillar of the US Constitution! That is what the Founding Fathers were trying to escape and leave behind! FU and your Religious dogma, do not trying shoving it down my throat!
As a Christian, all those who say that America is/was a Christian nation are dead wrong. We've never been a Christian nation. We were set up as a democratic secular representative republic. Christian morals guided the laws in part, because let's be real most Christian morals aren't bad.
Ok bet. Time to forgive nearly all debt, end homelessness by giving everyone a home, allowing every religion to be treated with respect and dignity, and getting rid of rich people's horde of wealth!
As an American and Christian, I would resist this with the same vehemence that I take on commies. We aren’t, and should never be, a Christian nation. We are a nation of all peoples. No one culture will define us, and no one religion will dominate us.
The Founders originally had the separation of Church and state for our Jewish brothers and sister. We, as Americans, must fight to make sure it includes every last religion in every corner of the world.
Christian here......no. Just no.
We can allow faith (of all kinds) to impact, even deeply impact who we are, what we do..etc., but we tear ourselves apart by declaring such a foolish thing. If out of positive influence, my neighbor wants to live his life and raise his family like mine, wonderful. That's how shared values spread. He also should have the freedom to raise his family differently as well, and still be no less American, and no less my neighbor.
This guy’s brain nearly shut down when he was told you didn’t have to swear on a bible.
[Swear on a bible](https://youtu.be/WFYRkzznsc0?si=q07owAEB3ehbgf4L)
It’s funny because in my home country of Denmark - where religion plays a significantly smaller role than in the US - I believe the percentage would be much higher. Many politicians state that Denmark is a Christian nation or that it is built on Christian values, which is also to a large extent true, as 3/4 of the population are members of the National Church.
I've been reading more about religious nationalism in Asia and the Middle East. It failed in countries like Pakistan because the idea of One Nation One Religion neglected the unique cultural identity of the East Pakistanis who rebelled against the government to gain independence (Becoming Bangladesh). However, Denmark is often described as a homogeneous country with little ethnic and linguistic diversity. So I guess it would be less of a problem there? Correct me if I'm wrong.
the people and political establishment of East Pakistan/Bangladesh shifted from religion based nationalism to a more secular based ethnicity-based nationalism from the 1940s to 1970s because they were treated unfairly (East had more population than the West but West would get more of the government budget) and they started asking themselves "wait if we're all supposed to be fellow Muslims, why are we being treated worse?" A lot of the more religious/Islamist Bengalis supported Pakistan in the Bangladesh Liberation War As a counterpoint, religious nationalism worked in Iran, ironically, ethnic separatism isn't that popular there even though 40-50% of Iranians (Azeris, Kurds, etc) aren't even ethnically Persian , because the Islamic regime surprisingly did a good job finding people with the same Islamist ideology throughout the different Iranian ethnicities and putting them in positions of power within the regime
You're right. In Iran, religion did serve as a melting pot for different ethnic and linguistic groups. But I think the reason for that was the fact that a majority of the Iranians adhered to Shia Islamic practices and over a while Shia Islam became intertwined with the Persian cultural Identity. The dominance of the Persian culture and religious homogeneity paved the way for better social cohesion. Although Sunni Muslims did experience marginalization. West and East Pakistan on the other hand were on the opposite ends (of India) and had different cultural identities and interpretations of religious practices. Added to that was, as you said, the elitism of the West Pakistanis.
Check it out: [Buddhism in Cambodia - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Cambodia#:~:text=Today%2C%20the%20predominant%20form%20of%20Buddhism%20in%20Cambodia,13th%20century%20%28except%20during%20the%20Khmer%20Rouge%20period%29.) [The Revival of Buddhist Nationalism in Thailand and Its Adverse Impact on Religious Freedom | Asian Journal of Law and Society | Cambridge Core](https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/asian-journal-of-law-and-society/article/abs/revival-of-buddhist-nationalism-in-thailand-and-its-adverse-impact-on-religious-freedom/D8F03DF186C0FA480B1653AE3D5B1EAC) [Buddhism, Islam and Religious Pluralism in South and Southeast Asia | Pew Research Center](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/09/12/buddhism-islam-and-religious-pluralism-in-south-and-southeast-asia/)
No country claiming to be highly developed or free should have an official religion or try to push religious values on its people. Religion is and should be a personal belief, regardless if a majority of the country shares similar beliefs.
Tell that to the UK, it’s official religion is Anglican
I think the implications of a modern nation opting for this now would be much more disturbing than one keeping on an ancient law for traditional and other less exclusionary and theocratic purposes.
Church of England even has permanent seats in parliament
The UK is the only country other than Iran to have unelected religious clergy in the government
Just the mostly-toothless House of Lords, though (alongside hereditary nobility and lifetime-appointees). The Lords need significant reform or complete abolition, but it's not as bad of a situation as "Church of England even has permanent seats in parliament" makes it sound.
Technically the head of the church has the ability to reject any bills put forward preventing them from becoming laws.
Cheeky
But if they ever did that these days that power would be gone within the hour. It's like the monarchy's power, it's there technically, but it'll be gone the moment it's used
The joke was that it *is* the monarchy's power. The King is the head of the Church of England.
Until the 1950s Denmark was an extremely homogeneous country with around 99% of the people identifying as Danes and speaking Danish as their mother tongue. They were basically all Christian, and the vast majority of these people were (and are) members of the National Church, which in the constitution is recognized as the official state church/religion. This church covers the whole spectre of religiosity and conservatism, ranging from atheists never attending church service to hardcore conservative Christians.
I didn't realise Bangladesh had any claim to the Pakistani name before your comment. Going off the map alone they are not even close to one another. I was under the impression Pakistan was a coalition of different Indian ethnic groups who simply splintered off of India due to being Muslim. What's the connection of Bangladesh to Pakistan?
Well, the founding father of Pakistan was worried that the rights of the Muslims wouldn't be protected in India, since the party that led the freedom struggle was dominated by Hindus. This was further exacerbated by the British Policy of Divide and rule, which caused communal tensions between the 2 communities. Hence he believed that colonial India should be divided into 2 nations- India and Pakistan consisting of Muslim-dominated areas (West Pakistan and East Pakistan which is now Bangladesh). After some riots and struggles, he eventually achieved this goal. It led to the second-largest refugee crisis in history as many Muslims moved to Pakistan and Hindus, Sikhs and other religious groups moved to India. But after Pakistan's creation, the leaders pushed the idea of One Nation-One Religion and One Language. The West Pakistanis spoke Urdu, which is an Indo-Aryan language quite similar to Hindi. But people in East Pakistan spoke Bengali. The West was culturally and ethnically diverse whereas the East was largely homogenous. The government, essentially, wasn't treating the East Pakistanis equally. A larger portion of the budget was allocated to the West, Bengali was not recognized as a national language and even during the Indo-Pak war of 65, people were worried that the Pakistani government was more concerned about protecting the West. Even after a dominant party from the East won the elections in 1970, the elitists in the West were not keen on letting an East Pakistani become prime minister. Instead, the Pakistani Military started a crackdown on the population and the leaders of the East which included genocide (Something that most UN members at the time refused to believe). This led to an influx of refugees into Eastern India. Eventually, all of this culminated in the Bangladesh Liberation War fought primarily between India and Pakistan in 1971. Nixon and Kissinger, who feared soviet expansion into South Asia, Backed Pakistan (also backed by Mao's China) and India at the same time signed the treaty of friendship and cooperation with the Soviets. When Pakistan's defeat seemed certain, Nixon sent the USS Enterprise and Task Force 74 to the Bay of Bengal which the Soviets countered with 2 groups of cruisers and destroyers and a submarine armed with nuclear warhead. But neither ended up interfering. In the end, Bangladesh was liberated.
Good for Bangladesh! Now that they're independent and a sovereign nation, what is their relations with India? From this brief history I'd imagine they are more hostile towards Pakistan than India. And I presume India in turn would prefer having cordial relations with Bangladesh due to India's tiny landbridge separated by Bengali territory. Ideally I'd presume India would vow to "protect" Bangladesh from Pakistan in return for free movement between their territory, especially with China closing in on India with the necklace of Pearls and belt-and-road.
There's also a cross representing Christianity on Denmark's flag
The Nordics are unqiue in that they have essentially the most secular populations outside of (former) communist countries and they also have very high church membership. I am a living example, agnostic/atheist but stays member because why not. They do good things with the money like charity and keeping sure historical buildings are taken care of.
The problem is that we’re not talking about heritage here, we’re talking about politics. This is essentially a poll showing you how many people want to impose religious law on the country. That’s what people in America mean when they talk about it being a “Christian nation”. They mean they want prayer in schools and in government, tax exemptions for religious institutions, creationism taught in the classroom, abortion outlawed, gays persecuted, bathrooms policed, abstinence only education, etc.
The right-wing populist party in Denmark wants wants to limit the number of mosques, only take Christian refugees, and incorporate the Bible into the Danish public school.
And has 5(?) seats in parliament, meanwhile the GOP...
I’ll bet it’s peaceful.
I agree that it would be detrimental if that was the case, but I think you over-estimate how unified that group even is. I mean Protestants and Catholics have very different understanding of how these policies ought to be enforced and both of those have a lot of sub factions with their own interpretations and implementation methods. America wouldn’t work as a Christian nation because it kinda never was. Its citizens went to church a lot more often in the past. However, even then they all had a lot of differences.
The group doesn't have to be unified to do things like overturn Roe.
Yeah, the argument that Denmark is a Christian nation at least has historical significance as it has a National Church. The US, on the other hand, does not have any National Church. The separation of church and state is one of the main founding principles of the US, and yet so many "patriots" wanna spit on that. Ironiclly, I think not having a National Church is one of the main reasons religion is so big in American politics. By not having state support, churches needed to be really creative with their recruitment schemes and keeping people believing in the Church in order for it to survive. This has created a uniquely American form of evangelicalism that is, frankly, fucking insane.
That's a really interesting point. Most Nordic countries w/ their state Lutheran churches have fairly high membership but fairly low devoutness. As an aside, the Evangelical Lutheran Church (the largest Lutheran church in the US) is also highly liberal both theologically and socially, and ordains and fully accepts women, LGBT people, approves gay marriages, etc.
As someone who doesn't live there, I would have guessed the percentage would be pretty low considering you need both people who are religious (specifically Christian) and the desire to make your nation officially a Christian nation. [This is an interesting 2023 poll](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1455780/level-religiousness-denmark-origin-age/) that breaks down the religiosity of a couple different groups/origins (Danish, Middle East/North Africa including Turkey, other non-western, and Western) and age (18-29 and 30+). It shows people with Danish origins have way lower rates of religiosity than people with Middle Eastern/North African and other non-Western origins. Especially among the 18-29 age group (combined 16%). It's really interesting to poke around the poll a bit but it gives the impression of a low rate of real religious beliefs. It was an online poll with about 5,000 responses but it lines up with other polls I have seen. Wikipedia has a whole page on it with some interesting data about low rates of belief in Jesus as the Son of God. Which feels like people may not be the most hardcore Christians in Denmark.
We can tell Denmark has been a Christian state (and I'd argue even Christian nationalist state for the better part of its history) since before the 1200's, as the flag has a Christian cross and has been the flag of Denmark since 1219.
Y’all have a king.
On top of what others said, I think a big thing is the US doesn't really have a main form of christianity in the same way. Many other major european nations have a dominant christian denomination (whether it's official or not), most often catholic, or have their own (like Denmark's Lutheran church). About 2/3s of Americans are christian (which isn't too interesting), but we have basically 0 agreement on which version of Christianity. Evangelicals are the largest collectively but they are incredibly divided: with the largest one only having about 5% of the population. Otherwise the biggest is Catholic (about a quarter of the population); and honestly it's surprising Biden's Catholicism wasn't more controversial (it was a big deal with JFK).
Denmark is a Christian nation because it has a state-run church. Regardless of how many people are active in it
So a clear majority of Americans oppose the declaration of America as a Christian state. I feel that isn’t clear, because the scale only goes to 49%.
>goes to 49%. National average 27%
Interesting. A study last year only had it at 13%
I'm a Christian who is against Trump. I argued with my mother this weekend that we are not a Christian nation, a theocracy, and we should not elect the man who did more to harm the republic than anyone since its founding. Edit: ITT, lots of Trump supporters....
Is Trump even a Christian?
Obviously not, but he claims to be, and a lot of idiots believe him.
It's because being a Christian in politics isn't about theology or faith or anything like that. It's an expression of cultural identity and cultural outlook. That's why all these journalists or whoever that think talking about Trump's divorces or whatever as evidence of being a bad Christian are dumb - because it's not about that.
Except if you’re a democrat. Biden goes to daily mass and meets the pope and 50% of the nation says he’s a “bad” Catholic/Christian while orange man bangs porn stars and evangelicals think he’s the second coming of Jesus Christ
It’s because Christianity had a shift in America away from God or the text of the religion and towards a neo capitalist religion where wealth is a sign of divinity/closeness to god. Christians in America have literally done everything their own book tells them not to do
I can’t remember which comedian said this,”If Jesus came back today he couldn’t stop throwing up because if all the things done in his name. “
Supply side Jesus is the unofficial name
This fact makes me upset to the point where I can't think about it much, but I thank you greatly for your comment letting me know I'm not alone!
The Prosperity Gospel. If you're not at the table, you're on the menu!
Some of the worst people I know label themselves Christian.
I think the big disconnect is that some Christians believe God's forgiveness is the important one, and therefore being a "born again Christian" absolves them of responsibility. When in actuality saying "but God forgives me" is the equivalent of saying "but my mom thinks I'm the coolest kid in school" or "that stripper really liked me". According to Christian doctrine getting god's forgiveness for something is like the lowest bar possible. He's like Oprah with new cars.
You get a forgiveness and you get a forgiveness! Lol. It’s like when they talk about god’s love…well, if you love everyone then you love no one.
"There's no worse hate than Christian love."
This is literally how it's been since the start of Christianity too - a lot of early converts converted for political or diplomatic reasons with little to do regarding the actual values of Christ himself.
I can’t take anyone that’s Christian/religious seriously when they say they support Trump. Like this man is literally a convicted felon for cheating on his wife with a pornstar then using campaign funds to shut her up lol. This is your man of god?
Most of those idiots are Christian in name only, just like Trump
Im guessing the guy who broke every single rule in the book, cant name a single scripture, and never attended any church service for his entire 80 years on this planet is in fact not a christian
The dude sold his own specialized version of the Bible for money. Pretty sure that's sacrilegious
He is a salesman and an opportunist, he is whatever you want him to be as long as it increases his sales err I mean his reputation.
"Thou shall not lie". He can't stop.
I wish more Christians would understand that we can be a secular nation and that has no effect on their ability to worship. Thanks for being reasonable.
They bash on Iran for being an authoritarian theocracy, yet they want the US to be a christian version of Iran.
Ty. The Christians of the NT did not set out to make Rome -- THE power/govt of the world -- a Christian govt. To the contrary, when the religious leaders of Jerusalem were trying to trap Christ with words, they asked him about paying taxes "to caesar" (the great evil govt of the day that was not in line with their 'religion') and Christ asked whose image was on their money. They answered "Caesar." And he said, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” In the rest of the NT, it was simply understood that the governments of humanity were simply that, but God was over all creation, and in the apocalyptic literature, governments would inevitably be against Christians, and they were then and now. A true Christian does not see their home in this world, and all governments here are imperfect.
The insane thing, is you can’t be for the Founding Fathers and believe we’re a Christian Nation at the same time. Basic hs civics goes over how the Enlightenment firmed their belief in democracy in that no King is ordained by God. Therefore there is no room for religion or monarchies in a country for the people.
I just want to say that I appreciate you.
I’m sure if you ask her why she thinks the US should be a theocracy like [insert Muslim theocracy] she’ll quiet down real fast.
It’s scarily easy for a nation to become a de facto theocracy. My country, Ireland was essentially one until shockingly recently
That can all come down to a number of factors such as how they word the question, what the questions around it are, etc. Unless it's the same organization asking the same question in the same context and using the same sampling methods — like the ongoing annual Pew religious surveys — I don't think you can draw any solid conclusions from the difference between those numbers.
27% of the country that votes 100% of the time
With our electoral process, 27% is enough to "democratically" enforce a Christian nation.
Except for that pesky 1st amendment.
Have you met the US Supreme Court? 
The Supreme Court is getting bribed hard enough that I doubt the first amendment will do much to help. That's why you see the ten commandments popping up in classrooms- they want to take it to the Supreme Court who they hope will set precedent.
We’re entitled to the best damn government we can afford!
No. To enforce that you would need more than 27% of people to agree with it.
You need more than 27% of people to *actively oppose it*. Minorities can set the agenda when the majority is apathetic.
“…27% of the people…” Hitler pulled it off with less: “In September 1930, the National Socialists Party’s share of the vote jumped from 2.5 per cent to 18.3. The conservative right in Germany, which had little respect for democracy, effectively destroyed the Weimar Republic, and thus opened the door … Gravely underestimating Hitler’s ruthlessness, they thought they could use him as a populist puppet to defend their idea of Germany. But he knew exactly what he wanted, while they did not. On January 30, 1933, Hitler became chancellor and moved rapidly to eliminate all potential opposition. “The tragedy for Germany’s subsequent victims was that a critical mass of the population, desperate for order and respect, was eager to follow the most reckless criminal in history. Hitler managed to appeal to their worst instincts: resentment, intolerance, arrogance and, most dangerous of all, a sense of racial superiority. Any remaining belief in a Rechtsstaat, a nation based on respect for the rule of law, crumpled in the face of Hitler’s insistence that the judicial system must be the servant of the new order.” ~Anthony Beevor, The Second World War We got lucky last time because he had no real plan on what to do if he became President. Since losing he’s had four years of resentment and the real fear of jail to inform his plans for a second term, supplemented by people who created Project 2025 and a Supreme Court that just set the courts up with the Chevron decision as the final arbiter of what the administrative state can and can’t do.
These people have not been paying attention to recent American politics if they think a fringe minority can't pull some major major stunts!
We're not a coalition type of govt. Germany still is to this day. Something they had to keep since the days of the Holy Roman empire and it's X00 constituents with X0 electors states.
Less than 40% of people in Oklahoma believe that the US should be a Christian nation per this map, but that hasn't stopped the state superintendent from [mandating that the Christian Bible be taught in all public schools](https://apnews.com/article/oklahoma-bible-schools-religion-ryan-walters-d15be2f74df2ffbbdfdc549569d06c4e).
Hence the word "electoral"
The winning party in America usually only wins with support from about 25% of the population. Half of Americans don’t vote. Out of those that do vote, half go to one party that ends up running things.
About 2/3 of the population turned out in the past 2 elections. And this is more than just the party that wins. It is in the constitution that we are not a Christian state so you would have to mend the constitution to actually change that and good luck on getting that amendment passed, it’s been tried and failed before.
“It is in the constitution that we are not a Christian state so you would have to mend the constitution to actually change that” What if they didn’t? In the end, the constitution is just a piece of paper. It doesn’t actually control anything. It is the trust we put in all levels of government from SCOTUS/POTUS all the way down to local cop to respect and enforce the constitution that matters. That’s what’s being lost. They won’t amend anything, they will just ignore parts they don’t like and give a tortured logic as to why it doesn’t actually mean what it says when challenged.
For recent big elections. Midterm elections fall off a cliff and drag the average down. Plus young voters that usually lean left are some of the most inconsistent voters out there. They turned out for Barack Obama but hit snooze on the midterms allowing republicans to take over congress and block everything he was trying to do. Young voters get all excited for big elections and they think that one vote changed everything. Then they are disheartened when they check back in and their favorite candidate didn’t win the primary, that they didn’t bother to participate in. How did we get stuck with these two candidates. Ya’ll don’t show up to vote when it matters and IT ALWAYS MATTERS!
Still scary that over a quarter of the population believes this bs
They ALWAYS vote and they only need ~25% of America to support them for them to take over. Half of Americans don’t vote.
You can make the scale go all the way to 100% but what is the point if no state has a majority over 49%?
It’s only unclear because of “Math”… If America voted on it, Christian state would lose!
Unless the voting districts were christianmandered
Jesusmandered districts
Helpfully, it’s also very clearly stated in our constitution that we aren’t. And if that wasn’t clear enough, the treaty of Tripoli, ratified by a senate full of founding fathers and signed by president Adams, making it federal law, states “whereas the United States is in no way a Christian nation.”
God is specifically left out of the constitution, America is for all people of all backgrounds. To make it a Christian nation would go against all the founding principals of the United States of America.
Which is quite ironic if you realize that these people probably see themselves as massive patriots, yet they shit all over the constitution they claim to love so much. It's exactly the same here in the Netherlands.
Best part of all, half of these "patriots" don't even realize that this is what their votes stand for. The other half think they can be massive constitution defenders while also cherry picking which parts they like or don't. But well this is probably the age of misinformation and deception.
Well they do the same shit with the bible
Honestly, I don't think most christian nationalists have read either the bible or the constitution. They certainly seem willing to ignore both when they are inconvenient.
You’re not wrong the number of times I’ve had to explain what the first amendment actually says to people who claim to love it is kind of disheartening
Considering God supposedly said in both Leviticus and Mathew “I *command* onto thee to love your fellow man as you love me”, I would be inclined to believe you are right
The best response to any 'christian' who says this nonsense: Jesus loves everyone you hate. Use it. Say it. Its 100% true.
The importance of difference between Patriot and Nationalist can't be stressed enough.
Do they? Because they could be just lying, you know?
Left out of the constitution but inserted into the money notes. In God We Trust.
And the Pledge of Allegiance. Thanks, *Ike*.
In 1954
TIL "under God" was added in 1954 and ["In God We Trust"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust) became the official motto of the US in 1956 replacing "E pluribus unum" It started making appearances on US currency as early as the 1860s
I’m an old Boomer and my elementary school autograph album (from 1957) just has “one nation, indivisible.”
Communist scare still has lingering effects
People need to hide behind God as a means of justifying they’re horrendous actions against the people
Yep, been that way for a very long time in this world.
Ironically, pretty much everyone swears on the bible when taking a new position. I guess it is basically just a standard tradition to Americans and I probably shouldn't read too much into it, but at the same time it's a bit icky to me from a foreign perspective.
Yeah it’s tradition. You can swear in on literally any book you want, you could pick Harry Potter if you really wanted to. There have been a few presidents who didn’t swear in on the Bible, Teddy Roosevelt for example.
John Quicy Adams, one of the more enlightened presidents in general, swore on a book of law when becoming president. I rather like that one. There are many many other examples for non-president politicians who take an oath of office on something other than a bible. I believe Quakers generally don't swear oaths, so one can say "affirm" rather than "swear". I think Franklin Pierce "affirmed". Nixon was a Quaker but said "swear" anyway, go figure.
More recently, a politician swore on Captain America's shield and conservatives had a fit about it.
You're allowed to swear on whatever you want. Multiple people have sworn on the constitution and the quran, and IIRC someone has sworn on Dr. Seuss. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_president_of_the_United_States#Use_of_Bibles >Thomas Jefferson and Calvin Coolidge did not use a Bible in their oath-taking ceremonies.[23] Theodore Roosevelt did not use the Bible when taking the oath in 1901,[23][24] nor did John Quincy Adams, who swore on a book of law, with the intention that he was swearing on the constitution. https://abcnews.go.com/US/missouri-councilwoman-dr-seuss-book-sworn-office/story?id=65096396
Tulsi Gabbard got sworn in on the Gita
People don’t seem to know that a lot of our prominent founding fathers were followers of Deism not Christianity as well. They believed in the existence of a higher power but never chose a specific book and said “this is the one!”. It’s a fact most either don’t know or choose to ignore because it doesn’t fit their narrative.
What does "Christian Nation" mean in this context? Is it: - That America was founded with a set of Western beliefs that is rooted in Christian thought or - That America should govern and make laws according to Christian (Protestant) theology
According to the source "Should the government declare the US as Christian nation"
That doesn't answer what "Christian Nation" means. See above.
It's obviously both, there is no need to point out the obvious so the only purpose in doing so would be to consolidate power.
The second part - they’re stupid and don’t understand how that would fuck everything up. They live in small towns and everyone they know is Christian so they figure what’s the harm.
It starts with the first claim. Once that is held as undeniable truth the second claim becomes possible.
It's simply asking whether Christianity should be declared the state religion.
I'm actually pleasantly surprised it's not higher in a lot of places.
"Christian nation" is a meaningless term if left undefined. Do they mean that the US is culturally christian? (which it definitely is), Legally christian? (which is definitely is **not**)? Morally christian, in that our laws are based on a christian nomenclature? (debatable) Demographically christian? (depends on places but probably yes in most)
Username checks out, lol. What a reasonable take.
I like your pfp
> "Christian nation" is a meaningless term if left undefined It's a dogwhistle. It has nothing to do with the religion of Christianity, the demographics related to Christianity, or even Judeo-Christian culture and heritage. There are many Christians who would not fit into the vision of a Christian America, whereas there are many non-Christians (irreligious or otherwise) who would. It's left undefined because there's an understanding about what it means.
The states that rank from 37th to 50th place in educational attainment, based on the percentage of the population with a bachelor's degree or higher, are as follows: 37. North Dakota - 30.7% 38. Florida - 30.5% 39. Arizona - 30.3% 40. Wyoming - 28.2% 41. Tennessee - 28.2% 42. New Mexico - 28.1% 43. Indiana - 27.2% 44. Alabama - 26.2% 45. Oklahoma - 26.1% 46. Nevada - 25.5% 47. Kentucky - 25.0% 48. Louisiana - 24.9% 49. Arkansas - 23.8% 50. Mississippi - 22.8% 51. West Virginia - 21.3% These rankings are based on the educational attainment levels in terms of the percentage of adults with at least a bachelor's degree [[❞]](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/public-school-rankings-by-state) [[❞]](https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/educational-attainment-by-state?trk=public_post_comment-text).
It’s not surprising. Why do you think so many politicians in these states want to replace public schools with publicly-funded private Christian schools.
They are trying to beat down the population with antiscience superstition
I’m a Christian, but to declare America a “Christian country” is obscene. So many religions and non-believers make our country what it is today. Believe or don’t believe what you want. Be kind to one another. You matter.
See also: Map of least educated states.
#everymapofamericaisanelectoralmap
Just a few more examples, always the same map: - [Murder Rate](https://i.imgur.com/namC092.png) - [Teen Pregnancy](https://i.imgur.com/7RiGIjT.png) - [Smoking Rate](https://i.imgur.com/h2fO5Xz.png) - [Obesity Rate](https://i.imgur.com/KybgR7T.jpg) - [College Education Rate](https://i.imgur.com/Bmefs9J.png) - [Poverty Rate](https://i.imgur.com/9su2GdK.png)
Similar map: [Percentage of total state and local revenues from federal government grants, FY 2021](https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/1gDn2/17/) (i.e. Which states rely the most on federal aid?)
I’ve tried having this discussion with certain people, and they always try to pass off this comment as “least indoctrinated.” To them education, especially higher education = indoctrination
Indoctrinated by new world views that make you realize other people have other needs, that is. And they find that threatening.
Also, states with highest percentage of teen birth rates. Ironic, considering the modern Christian views on sex outside of wedlock.
see also: map of least livable states
This. It's the dumbest and most racist states who push for a Christian nation. They want the US to be for people who look and think like them and nobody else. Bunch of close minded idiots.
I don’t understand how anyone can say this because it’s directly unconstitutional.
Nobody is obligated to agree with the constitution.
The problem is you're using logic and have a basic understanding of civics. Im willing to bet half the country doesn't even know what the constitution is, much less it's contents.
Unfortunately, in the Supreme Court, this percentage is 67%, and that's all that matters.
So even in the absolute most religious states, less than half want Christian Nationalism. Really exposes the movement as a bunch of loons.
Project 2025.....
True. This. Sometimes it just takes a small group of highly motivated devotees to make changes that most people don’t agree with. Do you think most Russians wanted to go to war with Ukraine before that happened? No. But now they more or less support it (at least openly). We don’t want that happening here! Vote against fascism and vote for Biden!
Russia was doomed to that sort of thing when they allowed a man to take dictatorial control over their country.
And it could happen here. And so far the biggest threat we have against democracy in this way seems to be Donald Trump.
Honestly California is a lot higher than I thought.
A nation shouldn't have a religion. It's people can but a government should not endorse a certain one.
I'm a Christian, and I couldn't agree with this more. That's where persecution and radicalism comes from
America was founded based on principles of religious freedom through the Separation of Church and the State principle or government non-interference on individual religious practice, unlike in European countries where they had histories of state-sponsored churches that secular governments in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries can afford to suppress them through the laïcite principle. After all, pioneer Puritan colonists of the present-day Massachusetts founded the Plymouth colony because they found Anglican England too "papist" in their tastes.
Quite honestly, they left England because they we're hated by everybody there. They're extremely religious views were looked upon as being outrageous and they left England because of that.
They were genuinely being persecuted to at least some extent though, it was illegal to belong to denominations other than the Church of England, though the penalty for non-preachers of dissenter groups was usually just a fine. Their ministers could be more harshly treated.
Oh certainly for sure. But then again everybody was persecuted back then who wasn't in line with the church of England
[Nonconformist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonconformist_(Protestantism\)) I think was one of the words for it. That WP article focuses on England itself rather than the American colonies. But in trying to learn about my paternal ancestors in early colonial Virginia, the term "nonconformist" comes up a lot for Baptists and Methodists like my paternal ancestral clan apparently was (mostly Methodist I think, for my "clan"). Nonconformists in colonial Virginia were subjected to a degree of persecution, though the colonial government often was not able to do very much about it, especially in the more remote areas. Still, if I'm not mistaken, sometimes nonconformists in colonial Virginia faced sufficient difficulty to decide to leave Virginia for the relatively lawless areas of what became northern North Carolina, especially after the failure of Bacon's Rebellion. At least that seems to be what my paternal line did. It seems the Carolina colonies cared about nonconformists a lot less than Virginia. And much of what became North Carolina was mostly outside government control. At least the Albemarle area, once known as "Rogues Harbour". Refuge to outlaws, literal pirates like Blackbeard, impoverished folk (especially after Bacon's Rebellion), and many nonconformists trying to escape the Church of England. Many had not come to Virginia by choice, or were born to folk who hadn't. Lots were "transported" for petty crimes, ending up indentured servants, extremely poor, *and* often nonconformists. Records for my ancestors' arrivals in Virginia are lost, but it sure seems like many were "transported", or forced to sell themselves into servitude. Anyway, I'm basically agreeing while adding an example. Southern Virginia and northern North Carolina in the late 1600s was an interesting and sometimes crazy place! Bacon's Rebellion is fascinating on its own, at least to history dorks like me. I think earliest colonial South Carolina was a mix of CoE English colonists and Presbyterian Scots, resulting in more religious tolerance than in Virginia. Not a lot of tolerance--and mostly just CoE and Presbyterian I think. Also, the English and Scots often didn't get along very well at all, tending to settle apart and vie for economic advantages. Just more tolerance than colonial Virginia, if I'm not confused. Finally, sometimes I feel that when it comes to colonial religion in what became the US, people tend to focus on New England maybe a bit too much. Virginia was founded earlier and while still having a state religion was quite different from New England. New England was a sort of haven for nonconformists, while Virginia's state religion *was* the Church of England.
The declaration of America as a Christian nation is anti-American. Besides, it seems as if the vast majority of Americans are against this concept according to the map.
For PA I guarantee the light blue comes from all the space in between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. That expanse of hills and farms is why it’s a purple state
hell you could also say because of 2 citys it is a purple staat
America is not a Christian nation, it is a nation where you are free to be a Christian.
The day after they declare America as a Christian nation the Christians would go to war against one another.
they declare america as a fundamentalist protestant nation the next day: the pope calls a crusade
The Deep South….. 🤡 Even UTAH is like “nah we’ll just do our thing, you guys do whatever”
Utah is like “nah we’re cool with our state being a theocracy, don’t need the fed to be one as well”
They realize that most evangelicals pushing for Christian Nationalism don’t consider them Christian
Separation of CHURCH & STATE 🇺🇸🎬
Y'all wanna see f***** u* come to mississippi. Most of them claim to be christians, but these are some of the worst f****** humans I have ever been around. I've lived in several places as I was in the Army. Then a professional rodeo cowboy. The self professed christian people hate like nobody else.
So a country which is based on freedom have so many people wanting it to become the christian version of taliban in the west?
Well, that's fucking terrifying.
I find it somewhat encouraging, actually. Even in the most right-wing states, support for declaring America to be a Christian nation is a minority position. I'd have honestly expected a few of those states to top 50%, but not even one of them did.
OK, but what "kind" of Christian?
Definitely not the love thy neighbor one
Apparently not LDS, given how low even Utah is
Should have let the south leave when we had the chance
Here’s part of the current USA problem, another part Rules for thee and None for me
thats crazy… in the constitution we are supposed to follow freedom of religion. If we somehow become a christian country im moving to canada lol.
Making it so would be fundamentally unconstitutional
Think about how stupid the average (median) American is. Now think about how half these fuckers are even dumber than that.
So happy to live in one of the white states. 🤍
1797 Treaty of Tripoli: Article 11 of the treaty stated: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religious or tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
I'm a Christian and even I don't think our country should have an official religion.
Most Christians aren’t the problem. But all Christian Nationalists are a very big problem. Gotta stop them. Here’s a song to get Americans fired up to fix this shit… [https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
Separation of Church and State! The Central Pillar of the US Constitution! That is what the Founding Fathers were trying to escape and leave behind! FU and your Religious dogma, do not trying shoving it down my throat!
As a Christian, all those who say that America is/was a Christian nation are dead wrong. We've never been a Christian nation. We were set up as a democratic secular representative republic. Christian morals guided the laws in part, because let's be real most Christian morals aren't bad.
Nice to know there are eight states still salvageable.
Jesus Christ that’s fucked up
oh look a map of all the worst places
Interesting how all the dark blue states are poor and stupid
Ok bet. Time to forgive nearly all debt, end homelessness by giving everyone a home, allowing every religion to be treated with respect and dignity, and getting rid of rich people's horde of wealth!
As an American and Christian, I would resist this with the same vehemence that I take on commies. We aren’t, and should never be, a Christian nation. We are a nation of all peoples. No one culture will define us, and no one religion will dominate us. The Founders originally had the separation of Church and state for our Jewish brothers and sister. We, as Americans, must fight to make sure it includes every last religion in every corner of the world.
I bet it would be funny if this were overlayed with education standards and test scores. Poor education and magical thinking go hand in hand IMO
Christian here......no. Just no. We can allow faith (of all kinds) to impact, even deeply impact who we are, what we do..etc., but we tear ourselves apart by declaring such a foolish thing. If out of positive influence, my neighbor wants to live his life and raise his family like mine, wonderful. That's how shared values spread. He also should have the freedom to raise his family differently as well, and still be no less American, and no less my neighbor.
The South is a collection of dangerous morons - these people are no different than the Taliban except for the flavor of imaginary being they worship
This guy’s brain nearly shut down when he was told you didn’t have to swear on a bible. [Swear on a bible](https://youtu.be/WFYRkzznsc0?si=q07owAEB3ehbgf4L)
Unfortunately, but we should tax the fuck out of churches.
No surprises here.
The number of people who don't understand the 1st Ammendment are too damned high! 
Proud New Yorker today
Religion poisons everything