The obvious: America was never a Christian Nation

This writeup is going to be quick, because the answer to this issue is so obvious to anybody who simply looks at the fundamental documents of this nation without any bias or clouded judgment on what should-be instead of what just-is.

This writeup will almost be devoid of any sources, because to me it is nothing more than icing on the cake or adding more layers to something that should be already self-evident.

If The United States of America is a so-called “Christian Nation” then why:

Does nowhere in any of the founding documents, (Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, The Federalists, ect) does it mention even once Jesus?

Why does the Declaration of Independence refer to God as “Nature’s God,” or “Creator”? Does any Christian refer to God in such a way?

Why is the government designed to be purely secular in its structure, owning nothing into account of God, and that the workings of such a government is purely rested upon man?

If America is a Christian Nation, then why does the 1st Amendment allow for all religions and does not favor any religion over any other? It is a fact that in America that Islam, Buddhism, and Satanism is equal to Christianity in the eyes of the government.

It’s also obvious that The 1st Amendment itself contradicts Christianity, since it relegates it to merely one religion out of many that are all equal and should not interfere in the affairs of the government in any way.

That Christians say that all of mankind must profess to the faith and authority of Jesus Christ yet make an exception for government officials and all political affairs off the basis of some principle (which is non-christian) is an absurd contradiction.

That there is some odd dissonance that faith and morality is only confined to the individual in their inconsequential private life, yet these universal truths should not be carried over to the whole entirety of society like one unified faith.

That the 1st Amendment’s Freedom of Speech allows for blasphemy and libel against God and Christ as a fundamental Right is something too obvious to ignore.

Now people can make the weak argument that The People of America are christian and that it is in them that this nation is christian and not the secular government. This argument is stupid. First of all, American demographics could have been mostly christian and have lived under christian norms, but what if they or within a generation all convert to another religion? Even then this would be largely irrelevant since the government does not change and that the people of a newly converted religion are still required to obey the laws of the government. Another thing is why would a so-called christian nation’s people profess Jesus and yet not demand the government be required to do the same, but allow it to remain secular? That is a most ludicrous contradiction.




  • Yves Vannes

    The purpose of the Constitution was to outline how the government would work. The underlying culture was taken for granted.

    You know this so what’s Your real point? That if we are to resort to constitutions we need to in detail define the culture as well?

    • Because the Government structure shapes the culture, culture is not just some independent entity that takes nothing from the governing structure. This is the error of the state/society split from Liberalism’s State of Nature that is totally false.

      America was a stable and rather traditional nation for a long while since there were residues of Christian Culture and Customs that people simply took for granted. Each successive generation the people become less Christian since the lifeforce of religion was not in the governance, and the government by default ruled by protocol based upon an exclusive secular governance, but still unprincipled exceptions of christianity seeped through the laws, (For example, sodomy was only recently legalized) but as the people have become “purified” or “shed” from their Christian residue then they will turn to the Liberal Secular governance the nation was intended from the beginning.

      “Outline how the government would work.”

      And from what theology was this government structured based upon? Enlightenment Deism or Protestantism. And who were the intellectual influences of The Constitution? Montesquieu, Locke, Hobbes, just to name a few, all of them who’s writings were banned by the church!

      In short, the Power Structure (i.e. government) creates and dictates Culture.

      • Yves Vannes

        I don’t disagree, but we didn’t start out aiming for this result.

        Despite all of the chit chat about “equally”, we began as an aristocratic republic. Once the aristocrats were replaced by plutocrats the decay of the intangibles accelerated. Once Mammon became the dominant measure of cultural value, we’ve been in civilizational decline.

        Form is important: a rigorous state religion is an absolute necessity … but the character of the elite class is of even greater importance.

        The West can run one election after another, have a civilizational resurgence of national and civilizational pride, etc…and it will still collapse. The culture is too far gone and (my whole point)…culture is far far far upstream from both politics and economics.

        The American secular Constitution didn’t set the stage for eventual decay, it was born in an age of cultural hubris. The entire civilization had chosen a long but sure path to rot. We and our little Constitution were simply along for the ride.

        (Maybe we’re making the same point but coming at it from a slightly different point of view. For me, the core of any culture: its aesthetic sensibilities, its moral sensibilities and its political sensibilities are all derived from its culture…a largely religious creation.)

        • Good points.

          “The American secular Constitution didn’t set the stage for eventual decay, it was born in an age of cultural hubris. The entire civilization had chosen a long but sure path to rot. We and our little Constitution were simply along for the ride.”

          Yes, I think it is unfair to lay the blame on the USA Constitution/founding solely since it was part of the current of decay, and that every nation has an identical constitution today and that America’s founding was concomitant to Europe’s ongoing decay to modernism, it is not the fountainhead, but it is a strong catalyst.

          “For me, the core of any culture: its aesthetic sensibilities, its moral sensibilities and its political sensibilities are all derived from its culture…a largely religious creation.”

          Yes, a religious creation and something that comes from the top-down. Sterile “State Religions” and ideology that have superseded religion is not a good generator of good culture.

  • Excellent post, and very much accurate. America has never had an authentically ‘Traditional Christianity’. Instead it has been a preying pit watched over by the vulture of Liberalism plucking at the unsuspecting adherents of a childish Christianity who have no idea what is happening to them.

    • Always a pleasure Mark. The preying pit is hidden in plain sight, yet American christians fall for it, and uphold the very concepts that oppress them.

      • Edmond Ko

        Very good, Christians, both Evangelicals and conservative Catholics do not realize they are controlled by the atheistic secular government and yet they demand complete obedience to the secular atheistic liberal government.

  • MorallyCorrect2

    Nearly all early American settlers from those on the Mayflower onwards were fleeing religious persecution in England. The Founding Fathers wanted to ensure that no American would ever be persecuted by any religious authority. Hence no school prayers, etc. This is painfully obvious to most. Is this important history not taught in American schools?

    • Thank you for responding to my post. The Founders might have had an admirable ideal that religious authority should not persecute other religions, but with this it is also concomitant to the state unbound by any religious authority, and under the pretense of neutrality or impartiality of “keeping the peace” between warring religious sects, results in the oppressive modern secular state unknown in any other period other than the present day.

      The presumptuous claim that secular states hold no religion or plays no favorites is false and fraudulent. The secular state follows Liberalism, which is a sort of heretical christianity counter-religion. The politics that plays out today with the Progressives vs Conservatives is a type of modernist “wars of religion” via ideologies where different denominations/sects of Liberalism (classical liberalism vs communism, SJW’s vs cultural libertarians ect) is a very obvious manifestation of this. My previous post delves more into this:

      • MorallyCorrect2

        If religion gives you comfort and guidance, I think that is fine. Christianity of the moderate variety does contain much good advice and moral guidance. But religion is far too often used hypocritically by some very bizarre and truly unAmerican people.

        Above all, just don’t shove it in my face or make my children stand in the hallway while their school says prayers.

        • You seem to make the conservative idea that religion is just a nice tame little pet that you can keep around then shoo back into the doghouse when it’s not needed and that what is above religion as it’s master are the preferences of individuals who have some sort of government that keeps it shackled. To have the utilitarian and approach to religion to reduce it to nothing but it’s side effects of “good advice” and “moral guidance” and to have a theoretically infinite multitude of religions each with various “good advice” and “moral guidance” then what can be the criterion to what is right and what is wrong?

          This turns society into just a giant relativist cafeteria where there is no standard except each “Individual” with their own preferences where what is infallible is “not shoving religious things in my face” all while “neutral” positions such as abortion and homosexuality are public, widespread, and legal.

          Doesn’t seem Morally Correct to any decent human being.

          • MorallyCorrect2

            Here is what I think. The body of thought developed in Northern Europe from about 1650 and onwards, often referred to as the Enlightenment, sets forth a comprehensive framework for science, ethics, morality, principles of social organization and so forth that stands the test of time and experience far better than any other thought structure ever devised. There is no moral relativity in Enlightenment values. The current nationalistic resurgence is a set-back but likely one that will pass.

          • The enlightenment has been disastrous for the human race, it is the mark of the terminal decline of western civilization where in all fields there has been a regression. Yes, it has it’s own false framework for science, ethics, morality, principles of social organization that cannot serve to construct anything of lasting value, but only exists to deconstruct and destroy remnants of the old order. The anti-humanity that it claims is humanism is so ludicrous that we see it’s insanity today in the various “progressive” movements.

          • MorallyCorrect2

            False. You are referring to what has been called post-modernism; a cynical philosophy developed by Focault, Rorty, Fish and a number of others. The view that morality is relative really only applies as a guide to make you mind your manners if you are at a fancy dinner. Western values, which are from the Enlightnment, are dominant and ascending globally. Trump, the AltRight, Nazis, etc are badly out of step at the moment.

          • I am not familiar with foucault rorty, or fish.

            But make zero mistakes, I am absolutely opposed to The Enlightenment. Liberalism’s (all manifestations of it) conception of the individual as prior to society and that a social contract is formed under consenting individuals who then form a society/state is false, whether it is the State of Nature of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, ect. The idea that prior to the “age of reason” that all women were oppressed and that equality and women’s rights has come such as from the writings of john stuart mill or kant. The idea that mankind lived in the age of “monkish ignorance” as stated by jefferson and paine and that all of human existence prior was the oppression of the Priests/Kings and now they live in the age of supposed liberty of the sovereinty of The People. The enlightenment’s odd conspiracy theories on the perennial history of authority (which to them is always bad and tyrannical) is insane which manifests itself in classical liberalism, libertarianism, feminism, marxism, and even afrocentrism. That all forms of elitism are “bad” because the very idea of a ruling class is somehow evil.

            That humans progress through time in a way akin to scientific advancements is false, as progress is a fiction that is perhaps the biggest lie of modernity.

            That Reason is the sole criterion and tool for obtaining truth is false, and that all humans are equal under the law is false and the abolishment of hierarchy in favor for egalitarianism is erroneous. That the paradigm in which society should revolve around is the preferences of the individual who has the right to negative liberty is also something I oppose. That we need a constitution that appeals only via positive law that is built around the individual’s sovereignty of freedom of religion, speech, and all types of either negative or positive liberty a subversive idea.

            That Political processes should work by educating or convincing each individual, who is assumed to be rational in the decision making process and having moral matters and affairs decided by the vote is just plain lunacy.

            The concept of “Rights” (human rights, lgbt rights, women’s rights, ect) is also an enlightenment concept that needs to be done away with in favor for it’s previous form in “Duties” which makes for a more moral and lasting society. That the Christian idea of the Trinity is rejected with the enlightenment’s deism is also part of the problem.

            That you repeatedly make references to trump or nationalism (which I never mention in this post) is very strange, considering he doesn’t oppose The Enlightenment in any way except perhaps that nationalism is “outdated” in favor of globalism. Nazism is also a another variant of enlightenment liberalism, so again why even bring it into this?

            Modern Progressivism such as the United Nations or Unicef, ect… advances the cause started in the enlightenment such as women’s rights, human rights, abolishing of capital and corporal punishment, and bringing scientific advancement and funding to cure cancer/diseases in order to remove human suffering, and the rule of law and democratic/republican styled government where The People rule, so how exactly are they deviating from the enlightenment? How are they not in-line with Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity?

          • MorallyCorrect2

            How can you not be familiar with them?

          • Giselher

            “How can you not be familiar with them?”

            So you can’t even argue basic points. A nation is first and foremost DNA. There would be no Holland without Dutch people. It does not matter if Germany would have gotten 1 Million Christian Arabs instead of Muslims, the fact is that they are Arabs, are foreign, hot-headed (they have the genotype MAOA-2R to about 15.6% as compared with 0.1% to 0.5% of Europeans). Their IQs are lower, their ethnic makeup differs, and ethnic conflicts would arise soon (they already have).

            The same is true for the US: it was a nation of free Anglo-Saxons. This points has already been made by Madison Grant more than 100 years ago, and it has now been made again by one of the brightest Alt-Right thinkers — who is also a Christian –, namely Vox Day in his book “Cuckservative” (with John Red Eagle).

            Mean IQ of nations is highly important, ethnic homogeneity likewise. homogeneous ethnostates, as envisioned by Arthur Kemp or WIlmot Robertson, are the future. Vox Day does not care if he has to leave Italy: it’s not about me or you, it’s about the question if Western Civilization survives. Individuals are of no importance.

          • Reading what most of what The Founding Fathers and notable American figures have said for the majority of the nation’s history, it was universally understood that the racial component is necessary to maintain their nation. This is very clear since they were universally opposed to integrating blacks and whites together as Jefferson and Lincoln have stated. This makes me wonder where exactly modern conservatism gets it’s contradictory mishmash of ideas from and that The Founding Fathers (Jefferson was big into scientific racialism) would be considered White Nationalists or Alt-Right if they lived in today’s USA.

          • MorallyCorrect2

            You say, “Mean IQ of nations is highly important.” I agree. Stupid whites are Americas biggest problem. How many whites are there in America? How many fall below the mean? A pretty big number, right? I rest my case.

          • Chris B

            Post-modernism is directly descended from the Enlightenment. The whole thing is a result of the absolute impossibility of basing an ethical system on anything grounded once you eject the human as a functional category. Nietzhsche’s great discovery was this failure of the Enlightenment project. If the Enlightenment wasn’t a failure, then we would not be arguing here.

          • MorallyCorrect2

            I exclude Nietzhche from all consideration as he was an outlier with a dismal view of life.