A Christian Nation
-
-
Interesting article, but I am not sure I follow his point. Christian religion has been around for a couple of thousand years. For 90% of that time, most of the governments that had a Christian population were monarchs.
I don't think that "democracy" is due to Christians. Weren't the Greeks the "founders" of democracy and they were not Christian. It is more due to a group of people who implemented it, and they could have been any religion. If the religion of Christians was the cause, it should not have taken almost 2000 years to implement after the start of the Christian religion.
(NOTE: I am not saying that Christians are bad. Not at all)
-
Interesting article, but I am not sure I follow his point. Christian religion has been around for a couple of thousand years. For 90% of that time, most of the governments that had a Christian population were monarchs.
I don't think that "democracy" is due to Christians. Weren't the Greeks the "founders" of democracy and they were not Christian. It is more due to a group of people who implemented it, and they could have been any religion. If the religion of Christians was the cause, it should not have taken almost 2000 years to implement after the start of the Christian religion.
(NOTE: I am not saying that Christians are bad. Not at all)
I agree with you. Until the latter part of the 18th century, a major characteristic - arguably even an underlying foundation - of Christian civilization had been hierarchy. Since then the demise of hierarchy has been gradual. I really don’t follow the author’s machinations suggesting or trying to demonstrate it to be otherwise.
-
From Rome to Britain to America, Christians have found value in a republican government, a charter of rights for citizens, and a healthy non-governmental religion of virtue, honor, and charity.
Well somebody doesn't know very much about Britain and how it's governed.
-
He's arguing for concentric rings of governance:
https://lawliberty.org/forum/union-or-empire/
In short, a turning away from Wilsonian Democracy and instead something more along the lines of Madison's federalist system. And he thinks that the Christian message is powerful enough that even if some men do not convert to Christianity, the benefits are so powerful, that men will enjoy the fruits of its civilization.
As written in the article:
"There is plenty for Christians to do politically short of indulging in Christian nationalist pipe dreams. Forget capturing the federal government for the purpose of cracking the whip of Christian morality to “unify” Americans who don’t want it. Instead, why not simply advocate for the restoration of American governance at its best—at its most disunited? A loose union of localized states with concentric rings of representative governance would allow those who wish to live in virtue and preserve Christian civilization. The freedom of association, limited government, and natural law are enough to bring about safety, prosperity, and growth for those who are capable of self-government.
In such a system, sorting on moral lines is natural. Those who wish to live with Christian values (or at least their societal benefits) in their lives will do so, while others who do not can try their luck with Atheism or perhaps Islam, short of anarchy. The results will speak for themselves.
Christian nationalism struggles to reify an immature American “nation” with its unwieldy, crumbling government, and thereby leaves no room for this ideal resolution whereby Christian civilization could continue and flourish. I wonder if those proposing a march through the national institutions to the tune of “Onward Christian Soldiers” have confidence in the ability of Christianity to speak for itself, to “out-govern” other moral systems."
-
He's arguing for concentric rings of governance:
https://lawliberty.org/forum/union-or-empire/
In short, a turning away from Wilsonian Democracy and instead something more along the lines of Madison's federalist system. And he thinks that the Christian message is powerful enough that even if some men do not convert to Christianity, the benefits are so powerful, that men will enjoy the fruits of its civilization.
As written in the article:
"There is plenty for Christians to do politically short of indulging in Christian nationalist pipe dreams. Forget capturing the federal government for the purpose of cracking the whip of Christian morality to “unify” Americans who don’t want it. Instead, why not simply advocate for the restoration of American governance at its best—at its most disunited? A loose union of localized states with concentric rings of representative governance would allow those who wish to live in virtue and preserve Christian civilization. The freedom of association, limited government, and natural law are enough to bring about safety, prosperity, and growth for those who are capable of self-government.
In such a system, sorting on moral lines is natural. Those who wish to live with Christian values (or at least their societal benefits) in their lives will do so, while others who do not can try their luck with Atheism or perhaps Islam, short of anarchy. The results will speak for themselves.
Christian nationalism struggles to reify an immature American “nation” with its unwieldy, crumbling government, and thereby leaves no room for this ideal resolution whereby Christian civilization could continue and flourish. I wonder if those proposing a march through the national institutions to the tune of “Onward Christian Soldiers” have confidence in the ability of Christianity to speak for itself, to “out-govern” other moral systems."
-
The article basically ignores Asia, where I think the only majority Christian country is South Korea, and that is quite recent.
-
The article basically ignores Asia, where I think the only majority Christian country is South Korea, and that is quite recent.
@taiwan_girl said in A Christian Nation:
The article basically ignores Asia, where I think the only majority Christian country is South Korea, and that is quite recent.
I would say the article presupposes Western Culture as superior, or at least, more free.
