Is America a Christian Nation? New Poll Suggests Few Americans View the US as a Christian Country

[ComplineSanFran]

I’m not a RC so I’m not sure. I am only speaking from a Christian point of view and I believe I was alluding to those Christians who are involved with allowing same sex marriage and endorse abortions. Scriptures are clear as to what we should believe in regards to these and other socially progressive teachings in some of our churches.

God bless,

Rita

So Rita, I am one of those people. My priest is gay, as are many clergy and laity in the Anglican church across the world, (I am in the US), as are many in other denominations.

I don’t ‘endorse’ abortions, but I very much support our laws that allow choice.

Scripture says a whole lot of things, but my community has also said that tradition and reason are part of how we understand who we are and what God wants of us.

I don’t want to make this a whole conversation, but the Church is so much broader than our corner of it, or how we interpret one aspect of our faith. One of my closest friends is very conservative in her Calvinist faith, and I am very liberal in my Anglican faith, and yet the two of us happily pray together.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

If they have a valid baptism, doesn’t the Church consider them Christian?

I would have to agree that the US is a country of many religions.

One can have a valid baptism and be an Atheist or something other than Christian.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

So how does the Roman Catholic Church categorize a person who has been validly baptized, if not a Christian?

Not RC, but I believe the RC church would categorize those as validly baptized as Christian.
HOWEVER, that doesn’t mean that every single person who is baptized believes that Jesus died for their sins. People can lose faith or fall away from their faith.

If someone wants to become RC, that is a different story. Then, I would think you are going to be asked if you believe, etc. I will find out shortly, as RCIA is about to start in the near future.

 

[MaryT777]

Here’s a few different scenarios for those who want to have a more “in depth” view of baptism and Catholicism…

The question was :

If I’m baptized as a Catholic, does that mean I’m Catholic forever?

Full Question
Once people are baptized Catholic, are they Catholic forever? What if they join another religion? If they aren’t Catholic anymore, how can they become Catholic again?

Answer

Once someone is validly baptized, Catholic or otherwise, he is baptized forever (CIC 845). One can never lose baptism or become “unbaptized,” although one might lose the benefits of baptism by personal sin. But as to whether someone baptized Catholic is thereafter always Catholic, that’s a slightly different question.

In most cases, the answer will be that someone baptized Catholic remains Catholic (see CIC 111, 205). But, by implication of canon 205–which requires, to be considered in full communion with the Church, a basic profession of the faith, some level of sacramental participation, and some degree of submission to ecclesiastical governance–one can imagine circumstances under which someone who was baptized Catholic might reject any or all of these elements to the point at which he could not be considered fully Catholic anymore, not withstanding the fact that he remained baptized.

That said, it is generally accepted that formal registration in another denomination, especially when coupled with support or work for that denomination and extended participation in its religious services, does constitute a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church. For that matter, a public declaration of defection from the Church, under otherwise credible circumstances, might well constitute a formal act of defection, since registration in another denomination is not strictly required for defection to take place. In any case, though, since Catholic baptism establishes a canonical presumption of Catholic affiliation, canonical proof of defection from the Church must be produced to overcome that presumption.

Finally, as to how one can come back into the Church, canon law does not specify a procedure to be used. The “abjuration of errors” formerly required by canon law under certain situations similar to the one you describe (1917 CIC 2314) has not been carried over in the 1983 Code. Therefore, I think that sacramental confession is generally the best route to follow. If there had been some public act (say, a letter to one’s bishop) by which one’s formal defection was accomplished, I think it prudent to repudiate such an act in the same or a similar public manner so as to remove any lingering doubts about one’s ecclesiastical status.

I think this was Catholic answers apologist but I can’t get the link back; however it’s Canon law .

Mary.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Here’s a few different scenarios for those who want to have a more “in depth” view of baptism and Catholicism…

The question was :

If I’m baptized as a Catholic, does that mean I’m Catholic forever?

Full Question
Once people are baptized Catholic, are they Catholic forever? What if they join another religion? If they aren’t Catholic anymore, how can they become Catholic again?

Answer

Once someone is validly baptized, Catholic or otherwise, he is baptized forever (CIC 845). One can never lose baptism or become “unbaptized,” although one might lose the benefits of baptism by personal sin. But as to whether someone baptized Catholic is thereafter always Catholic, that’s a slightly different question.

In most cases, the answer will be that someone baptized Catholic remains Catholic (see CIC 111, 205). But, by implication of canon 205–which requires, to be considered in full communion with the Church, a basic profession of the faith, some level of sacramental participation, and some degree of submission to ecclesiastical governance–one can imagine circumstances under which someone who was baptized Catholic might reject any or all of these elements to the point at which he could not be considered fully Catholic anymore, not withstanding the fact that he remained baptized.

That said, it is generally accepted that formal registration in another denomination, especially when coupled with support or work for that denomination and extended participation in its religious services, does constitute a formal act of defection from the Catholic Church. For that matter, a public declaration of defection from the Church, under otherwise credible circumstances, might well constitute a formal act of defection, since registration in another denomination is not strictly required for defection to take place. In any case, though, since Catholic baptism establishes a canonical presumption of Catholic affiliation, canonical proof of defection from the Church must be produced to overcome that presumption.

Finally, as to how one can come back into the Church, canon law does not specify a procedure to be used. The “abjuration of errors” formerly required by canon law under certain situations similar to the one you describe (1917 CIC 2314) has not been carried over in the 1983 Code. Therefore, I think that sacramental confession is generally the best route to follow. If there had been some public act (say, a letter to one’s bishop) by which one’s formal defection was accomplished, I think it prudent to repudiate such an act in the same or a similar public manner so as to remove any lingering doubts about one’s ecclesiastical status.

I think this was Catholic answers apologist but I can’t get the link back; however it’s Canon law .

Mary.

Perhaps this will be of additional help, Mary, and a bit more concise.

From a CAF apologist with the link:

“The Code of Canon Law currently does not recognize that someone can leave the Catholic Church. You might become a non-practicing member, but the Church’s laws consider anyone baptized Catholic to always be Catholic.”

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12648280&postcount=2

 

[Rohzek]

The whole effort to emphasize the idea that the US is a “Christian country” has resulted in nothing but attempts to justify the crimes of the nation. It was because of the so-called compassionate and Christian colonies that they attempted to minister to and conquer the Native Americans. Most of them wound up dead because of genocide. But this was supposedly for their own good and salvation. It was because the US had God on its side that it “justly” went around the world in the Cold War toppling democratically elected governments and supporting dictators in the name of fighting communism. It was because the US was a Christian country that it jailed homosexuals for having sex in their own homes. This list goes on and on.

Considering the framework in which the US was set up under and its historical record of heinous acts, I would say the US has never been a Christian country at all.

 

[Sy_Noe]

So Rita, I am one of those people. My priest is gay, as are many clergy and laity in the Anglican church across the world, (I am in the US), as are many in other denominations.

I don’t ‘endorse’ abortions, but I very much support our laws that allow choice.

Scripture says a whole lot of things, but my community has also said that tradition and reason are part of how we understand who we are and what God wants of us.

I don’t want to make this a whole conversation, but the Church is so much broader than our corner of it, or how we interpret one aspect of our faith. One of my closest friends is very conservative in her Calvinist faith, and I am very liberal in my Anglican faith, and yet the two of us happily pray together.

Amen. Well said, ComplineSanFran.

And I don’t want to make this a whole conversation either and I won’t. Nor what I am about to say is singling out anyone in particular as I’ve read posts written in Christian charity and with respect for others by those of a more conservative bend on social issues than I have.

But I would just additionally say, before people make general statements such as about another Christian faith’s abortion position (information can be found on the web & most have official websites nowadays), it might not be a bad thing to take time to look it up.

From what I can tell, the Episcopal position on abortion is not one of endorsing abortion. But TEC, as you do, recognizes women have the right to choose. TEC officially from what I read, actually only condones abortion in cases of rape or incest, to protect the woman’s health, or in cases of fetal abnormalities.

With regard to other Christian churches that might also be considered mainline-liberal, PCUSA does not endorse abortion as a means of birth control or convenience either but recognizes as well that women have legal rights to make this personal decision. So maintains fellowship with those who, on the basis of both a study of Scripture and prayer, come to diverse conclusions on the issue. ELCA speaks of the point of fetal viability. UCC, which perhaps some would say is the most liberal Christian denomination ( although it certainly varies by congregation) also recognizes reproductive legal rights and if a woman is going to choose abortion, that it should at least be safe.

pewforum.org/2013/01/16/religious-groups-official-positions-on-abortion/

Finally another I might put into the mainline-liberal mix, on abortion rights less so perhaps on SSM, is the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church). And they simply recognize a woman’s legal rights as well and a freedom of conscience. Affirming the sacredness of all life and how lives of all kinds can be affected.

accsd.org/site/page/christian-church-disciples-of-christ

None of this means anyone necessarily endorses abortion or as I see too often on CAF the accusation that people favor the murder of babies.

But again, have no intention of getting engaged into a whole back and forth conversation about this.

 

[7_Sorrows]

Amen. Well said, ComplineSanFran.

And I don’t want to make this a whole conversation either and I won’t. Nor what I am about to say is singling out anyone in particular as I’ve read posts written in Christian charity and with respect for others by those of a more conservative bend on social issues than I have.

But I would just additionally say, before people make general statements such as about another Christian faith’s abortion position (information can be found on the web & most have official websites nowadays), it might not be a bad thing to take time to look it up.

From what I can tell, the Episcopal position on abortion is not one of endorsing abortion. But TEC, as you do, recognizes women have the right to choose. TEC officially from what I read, actually only condones abortion in cases of rape or incest, to protect the woman’s health, or in cases of fetal abnormalities.

With regard to other Christian churches that might also be considered mainline-liberal, PCUSA does not endorse abortion as a means of birth control or convenience either but recognizes as well that women have legal rights to make this personal decision. So maintains fellowship with those who, on the basis of both a study of Scripture and prayer, come to diverse conclusions on the issue. ELCA speaks of the point of fetal viability. UCC, which perhaps some would say is the most liberal Christian denomination ( although it certainly varies by congregation) also recognizes reproductive legal rights and if a woman is going to choose abortion, that it should at least be safe.

pewforum.org/2013/01/16/religious-groups-official-positions-on-abortion/

Finally another I might put into the mainline-liberal mix, on abortion rights less so perhaps on SSM, is the Disciples of Christ (Christian Church). And they simply recognize a woman’s legal rights as well and a freedom of conscience. Affirming the sacredness of all life and how lives of all kinds can be affected.

accsd.org/site/page/christian-church-disciples-of-christ

None of this means anyone necessarily endorses abortion or as I see too often on CAF the accusation that people favor the murder of babies.

But again, have no intention of getting engaged into a whole back and forth conversation about this.

I still see the United as a Christian nation, but I do not know how long it will last.

 

[Kal2012]

Even though the US doesn’t have a state religion, it has generally been accepted by our leadership that Americans are a Christian people. Specifically, a White, Anglo-Saxon, Protestant.

It was a huge deal in the 1950’s to make this distinction because the Soviets were atheist and “Godless”.

And even though a lot of our founding fathers were deists, they realized that most of the population was Christian - which is why they used religious language to get the population to support the revolution and the resulting Articles of Confederation and the Constitution.

A lot of people feel uncomfortable with the idea that America as a Christian nation because we have a lot more religious minorities in the country than we did in the past.

However, we shouldn’t deny our heritage because it makes some people uncomfortable.

Mainline Christianity used to have a lot more influence than what it is today. Moral codes were strictly enforced by institutions and reinforced by society at large. These days, morals are a joke for a lot of people.

There are specific reasons why the WASP population was fearful of immigrant Catholics - different faith, different culture and customs. These were also the main reasons why Jews were discriminated against as well.

I’m so sick of people insisting that I should be ashamed of my WASP heritage. Even though I’m a Catholic now, I know my ancestry and history (both religiously and culturally). It’s not always good, but it’s not always ugly either.

It’s easy to look back and say “this or that was evil”, but at the time, people really believed that they were doing the “right” thing and did the American thing of justifying it by using religious language. Eventually, they learned it was actually the wrong thing and changed course.

Christianity has always been a contradiction. It isn’t stagnant, but it is unchanging.

And history has always been a cycle. When we go to one extreme, we end up changing course and moving towards the other extreme.

For instance, mentally ill people used to be institutionalized with no chance of ever getting out of the hospital. These days, there aren’t enough beds in most hospitals to care for all the people who really do need long-term mental health care. Where we need to be is somewhere in the middle - but we haven’t figured out how to get there.

What other cliches can I throw out there?