Do MAGAs want a Christian Nation or a Free Nation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want it to be a free nation with Christian ideals.

I do not want the level of national religious coercion that I see in Europe. For example, our IRS should not levy a tax on us to force tithing and then redistribute it to the church like they do in Germany and other places. Not the state's role.

Lucky for you no one is doing that here. They are simply saying that all should have religious freedom and we should not have Christianity shoved down our throats. (And ftr, I am Christian).

Having laws that Christians agree with is not "Having religion shoved down your throat."

When Christian views are cited as the basis for limiting reproductive healthcare or not giving gay/trans people equal rights and the 10 commandments start showing up in classrooms then yes, that is shoving it down people’s throats.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This White House document about religious freedom seems self-contradictory. A free nation (and the leader thereof) should not specify that people must believe in a single creator or any creator.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/09/president-trump-champions-religious-freedom-unveils-america-prays/

Personally, I value us as a "Free nation." I am also, admittedly, an atheist. Am I still welcome in the US? Or do conservatives want religion as a litmus test for being a "true" American?

Maybe it's your atheism, but you seem really confused.

DP. The founding fathers intended for us to be freely able to be atheists, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, whatever we like.
Anyone who thinks they wanted for us to be a Christian nation the way Trump does is the confused one.

Our declaration of independence is explicitly based on judeo-christian concepts like natural rights, humans being created by God, etc. I think it's fair to say that they envisioned a nation, as they articulated in the founding documents, based on western, democratic ideals.


In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-




Sen Tim Kaine recently attacked a witness during a hearing for saying that we have natural rights, claiming this was "Christian nationalism." It's literally the basis of our government.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I want it to be a free nation with Christian ideals.

I do not want the level of national religious coercion that I see in Europe. For example, our IRS should not levy a tax on us to force tithing and then redistribute it to the church like they do in Germany and other places. Not the state's role.

Lucky for you no one is doing that here. They are simply saying that all should have religious freedom and we should not have Christianity shoved down our throats. (And ftr, I am Christian).

Having laws that Christians agree with is not "Having religion shoved down your throat."

When Christian views are cited as the basis for limiting reproductive healthcare or not giving gay/trans people equal rights and the 10 commandments start showing up in classrooms then yes, that is shoving it down people’s throats.

The justices are required to consider the constitution, founding documents, and precedent, many of which explicitly cite religious concepts. America was founded by a Christian extremist sect; it's amazing we are as secular as we are.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This White House document about religious freedom seems self-contradictory. A free nation (and the leader thereof) should not specify that people must believe in a single creator or any creator.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/09/president-trump-champions-religious-freedom-unveils-america-prays/

Personally, I value us as a "Free nation." I am also, admittedly, an atheist. Am I still welcome in the US? Or do conservatives want religion as a litmus test for being a "true" American?

Maybe it's your atheism, but you seem really confused.

DP. The founding fathers intended for us to be freely able to be atheists, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, whatever we like.
Anyone who thinks they wanted for us to be a Christian nation the way Trump does is the confused one.

Our declaration of independence is explicitly based on judeo-christian concepts like natural rights, humans being created by God, etc. I think it's fair to say that they envisioned a nation, as they articulated in the founding documents, based on western, democratic ideals.


In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-




Sen Tim Kaine recently attacked a witness during a hearing for saying that we have natural rights, claiming this was "Christian nationalism." It's literally the basis of our government.

That our founding fathers said "Nature's God" in many documents speaks to staying away from a specific religious belief in a particular God - ie, a right of nature. In other words, I don't need to believe in God nor a creator to believe that being free and able to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, are *natural* rights rather than *God given rights*

Your post implies that one mist believe in a God as creator to be truly American. Guess this atheist should find somewhere that I can truly be free? Not welcome here?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This White House document about religious freedom seems self-contradictory. A free nation (and the leader thereof) should not specify that people must believe in a single creator or any creator.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/09/president-trump-champions-religious-freedom-unveils-america-prays/

Personally, I value us as a "Free nation." I am also, admittedly, an atheist. Am I still welcome in the US? Or do conservatives want religion as a litmus test for being a "true" American?

Maybe it's your atheism, but you seem really confused.

DP. The founding fathers intended for us to be freely able to be atheists, Christians, Zoroastrians, Hindus, whatever we like.
Anyone who thinks they wanted for us to be a Christian nation the way Trump does is the confused one.

Our declaration of independence is explicitly based on judeo-christian concepts like natural rights, humans being created by God, etc. I think it's fair to say that they envisioned a nation, as they articulated in the founding documents, based on western, democratic ideals.


In Congress, July 4, 1776

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.-




Sen Tim Kaine recently attacked a witness during a hearing for saying that we have natural rights, claiming this was "Christian nationalism." It's literally the basis of our government.

All of which you say is a result of the secular humanism of the time. Itself born of the Enlightenment (the wokist MFers ever) the entire point of which was to question the nature of and existence of "God". While almost all engaged in "Pascal's Wager", you would be hard pressed to find a single founding father or intellectual contemporary who was "devoutly" Christian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

I'm pretty sure atheist countries suck the (looking at China).

The thing is all these religions have embedded in them social hierarchies and sort of rules of the road as to how people in various classes are to be treated, which is pretty much absent in atheism.

I think it's instructive but many religions consist almost exclusively of elite, but others are popular amongst the masses. Judaism is good example of this where are the poor Jews, I think most just leave (not to pick sides because Muslim countries are known to treat workers the worst.) I'm reminded of the Hannakah festival where the Rabbi made a point to call out every politician and or wealthy entity in attendance.

Anymore when interviewing I'm careful to read the religious vibes, and I'm not even a woman. The preference is for defacto American religion, that celebrates federal holiday's and days off.

There is a difference between a nation that requires atheism and restricts religion, vs one which allows freedom and happens to end up with a large number of agnostics/atheists

The freedom is the difference and the key to success.

For the rest of your comment, you sound awful and prejudiced and isolated. I hire a lot of people and their religion does not factor into it!

How many Muslims do you work for? Put some skin in the game! You sound aweful not realizing that people in the same class as you who hold religious beliefs will not treat people fairly in many cases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

I'm pretty sure atheist countries suck the (looking at China).

The thing is all these religions have embedded in them social hierarchies and sort of rules of the road as to how people in various classes are to be treated, which is pretty much absent in atheism.

I think it's instructive but many religions consist almost exclusively of elite, but others are popular amongst the masses. Judaism is good example of this where are the poor Jews, I think most just leave (not to pick sides because Muslim countries are known to treat workers the worst.) I'm reminded of the Hannakah festival where the Rabbi made a point to call out every politician and or wealthy entity in attendance.

Anymore when interviewing I'm careful to read the religious vibes, and I'm not even a woman. The preference is for defacto American religion, that celebrates federal holiday's and days off.

There is a difference between a nation that requires atheism and restricts religion, vs one which allows freedom and happens to end up with a large number of agnostics/atheists

The freedom is the difference and the key to success.

For the rest of your comment, you sound awful and prejudiced and isolated. I hire a lot of people and their religion does not factor into it!

How many Muslims do you work for? Put some skin in the game! You sound aweful not realizing that people in the same class as you who hold religious beliefs will not treat people fairly in many cases.

And here we had a Christian earlier in this thread admit they suss out religious beliefs in interviews to avoid those who don't celebrate Christian holidays

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

I'm pretty sure atheist countries suck the (looking at China).

The thing is all these religions have embedded in them social hierarchies and sort of rules of the road as to how people in various classes are to be treated, which is pretty much absent in atheism.

I think it's instructive but many religions consist almost exclusively of elite, but others are popular amongst the masses. Judaism is good example of this where are the poor Jews, I think most just leave (not to pick sides because Muslim countries are known to treat workers the worst.) I'm reminded of the Hannakah festival where the Rabbi made a point to call out every politician and or wealthy entity in attendance.

Anymore when interviewing I'm careful to read the religious vibes, and I'm not even a woman. The preference is for defacto American religion, that celebrates federal holiday's and days off.

There is a difference between a nation that requires atheism and restricts religion, vs one which allows freedom and happens to end up with a large number of agnostics/atheists

The freedom is the difference and the key to success.

For the rest of your comment, you sound awful and prejudiced and isolated. I hire a lot of people and their religion does not factor into it!

How many Muslims do you work for? Put some skin in the game! You sound aweful not realizing that people in the same class as you who hold religious beliefs will not treat people fairly in many cases.

Sounds like you don't want to live in a country that values freedom and has a first amendment like ours. If anti-freedom, there are other places for you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

There are very few true atheists, but a lot of lazy people that don’t want to render unto God what is God’s.

Those people can live off the fruits of their forefathers for a time, but things decay over time.

What you perhaps actually like is to live off the accumulated social capital without having to do anything yourself to maintain it. Much like some people like to live off inherited wealth without having to work hard. That certainly can be appealing.

This is why I’m poking you to name a truly non-Christian nation that meets your definition of freedom. Because such a thing cannot exist without generations of Christians doing the hard work.

DP...I didn't have to look very far because Canada is a non-Christian nation that meets my definition of freedom.

When would you say Canada became a non-Christian nation?

DP. It's in their constitution. From the founding, then.

The constitution provides for freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, and expression. Every individual is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on religion. The law imposes “reasonable limits” on the exercise of these religious rights only where such restrictions can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The law permits individuals to sue the government for violations of religious freedom. Federal and provincial human rights laws prohibit discrimination based on the grounds of religious belief. Civil remedies include compensation and changes to the policy or practice responsible for the discrimination.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/canada#:~:text=The%20constitution%20provides%20for%20freedom,without%20discrimination%20based%20on%20religion.

Their Constitution dates back to 1982, not the founding btw. They were founded as a Crown Colony, and the Crown is the head of the Anglican Church. So that's 200+ years of being an officially Christian nation, and 43 of being merely culturally Christian.

Once again, you people seem to really like formerly Christian nations that are frittering away their spiritual inheritance, much like one might befriend a trust-funder who spends his parents wealth. But we all know the shirt-tails to shirt-tails story.

And I'm still waiting for an example of a free nation without a deep Christian heritage.

Yes, Canada began as its own nation -- not as a colony of the British Empire -- with the patriation of its constitution. It has been an independent country since 1982.

If you wanted its history as a colony, you should have asked for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

I'm pretty sure atheist countries suck the (looking at China).

The thing is all these religions have embedded in them social hierarchies and sort of rules of the road as to how people in various classes are to be treated, which is pretty much absent in atheism.

I think it's instructive but many religions consist almost exclusively of elite, but others are popular amongst the masses. Judaism is good example of this where are the poor Jews, I think most just leave (not to pick sides because Muslim countries are known to treat workers the worst.) I'm reminded of the Hannakah festival where the Rabbi made a point to call out every politician and or wealthy entity in attendance.

Anymore when interviewing I'm careful to read the religious vibes, and I'm not even a woman. The preference is for defacto American religion, that celebrates federal holiday's and days off.

There is a difference between a nation that requires atheism and restricts religion, vs one which allows freedom and happens to end up with a large number of agnostics/atheists

The freedom is the difference and the key to success.

For the rest of your comment, you sound awful and prejudiced and isolated. I hire a lot of people and their religion does not factor into it!

How many Muslims do you work for? Put some skin in the game! You sound aweful not realizing that people in the same class as you who hold religious beliefs will not treat people fairly in many cases.

Sounds like you don't want to live in a country that values freedom and has a first amendment like ours. If anti-freedom, there are other places for you.

As long as I am free to criticize Islam as loudly as I want and am free to avoid said Islam practitioners in positions of power. What else is freedom if you don't include that as said freedoms?

Your are free to criticize me for my choices, but you still are just being insincere in your assessment of what freedom is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

I'm pretty sure atheist countries suck the (looking at China).

The thing is all these religions have embedded in them social hierarchies and sort of rules of the road as to how people in various classes are to be treated, which is pretty much absent in atheism.

I think it's instructive but many religions consist almost exclusively of elite, but others are popular amongst the masses. Judaism is good example of this where are the poor Jews, I think most just leave (not to pick sides because Muslim countries are known to treat workers the worst.) I'm reminded of the Hannakah festival where the Rabbi made a point to call out every politician and or wealthy entity in attendance.

Anymore when interviewing I'm careful to read the religious vibes, and I'm not even a woman. The preference is for defacto American religion, that celebrates federal holiday's and days off.

There is a difference between a nation that requires atheism and restricts religion, vs one which allows freedom and happens to end up with a large number of agnostics/atheists

The freedom is the difference and the key to success.

For the rest of your comment, you sound awful and prejudiced and isolated. I hire a lot of people and their religion does not factor into it!

How many Muslims do you work for? Put some skin in the game! You sound aweful not realizing that people in the same class as you who hold religious beliefs will not treat people fairly in many cases.

Sounds like you don't want to live in a country that values freedom and has a first amendment like ours. If anti-freedom, there are other places for you.

As long as I am free to criticize Islam as loudly as I want and am free to avoid said Islam practitioners in positions of power. What else is freedom if you don't include that as said freedoms?

Your are free to criticize me for my choices, but you still are just being insincere in your assessment of what freedom is.

Freedom of religion, freedom from religion, or freedom from your religion. Which is it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

There are very few true atheists, but a lot of lazy people that don’t want to render unto God what is God’s.

Those people can live off the fruits of their forefathers for a time, but things decay over time.

What you perhaps actually like is to live off the accumulated social capital without having to do anything yourself to maintain it. Much like some people like to live off inherited wealth without having to work hard. That certainly can be appealing.

This is why I’m poking you to name a truly non-Christian nation that meets your definition of freedom. Because such a thing cannot exist without generations of Christians doing the hard work.

DP...I didn't have to look very far because Canada is a non-Christian nation that meets my definition of freedom.

They seem to be attempting to make the point that many free nations historically were founded by Christians, so they can only attribute their success to that and not other things like basic evolution of human intelligence, ability for empathy, and level of education. Ultimately it is a giant correlation argument. Nevermind that atheists are "lazy."

The hilarious part is that the ideals that make nations free, such as individual liberty, reason, natural rights, and freedom of the press, speech, and religion, came from Enlightenment thinkers. Who were fiercely opposed by Christians.

The enlightenment itself is the outcome of a Christian society and Christian beliefs, notably about truth.

I’m an atheist but it pretty undisputable that Christian morality and belief is the cornerstone to western civilization. I’m not looking forward to the day when our society inevitably becomes either completely repaganized; conquered by the Islamicists or technologists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

There are very few true atheists, but a lot of lazy people that don’t want to render unto God what is God’s.

Those people can live off the fruits of their forefathers for a time, but things decay over time.

What you perhaps actually like is to live off the accumulated social capital without having to do anything yourself to maintain it. Much like some people like to live off inherited wealth without having to work hard. That certainly can be appealing.

This is why I’m poking you to name a truly non-Christian nation that meets your definition of freedom. Because such a thing cannot exist without generations of Christians doing the hard work.

DP...I didn't have to look very far because Canada is a non-Christian nation that meets my definition of freedom.

When would you say Canada became a non-Christian nation?

DP. It's in their constitution. From the founding, then.

The constitution provides for freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, opinion, and expression. Every individual is equal under the law and has the right to equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination based on religion. The law imposes “reasonable limits” on the exercise of these religious rights only where such restrictions can be “demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The law permits individuals to sue the government for violations of religious freedom. Federal and provincial human rights laws prohibit discrimination based on the grounds of religious belief. Civil remedies include compensation and changes to the policy or practice responsible for the discrimination.

https://www.state.gov/reports/2022-report-on-international-religious-freedom/canada#:~:text=The%20constitution%20provides%20for%20freedom,without%20discrimination%20based%20on%20religion.

Their Constitution dates back to 1982, not the founding btw. They were founded as a Crown Colony, and the Crown is the head of the Anglican Church. So that's 200+ years of being an officially Christian nation, and 43 of being merely culturally Christian.

Once again, you people seem to really like formerly Christian nations that are frittering away their spiritual inheritance, much like one might befriend a trust-funder who spends his parents wealth. But we all know the shirt-tails to shirt-tails story.

And I'm still waiting for an example of a free nation without a deep Christian heritage.

Yes, Canada began as its own nation -- not as a colony of the British Empire -- with the patriation of its constitution. It has been an independent country since 1982.

If you wanted its history as a colony, you should have asked for that.

Please give it up, Canada is a member of the commonwealth for goodness sake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Rather have a Christian nation than an Islamic one. Secularism is too fractured to stand up religious forces.

So if a religion is going to take over I’d rather it be Christianity than Islam. I really wish atheists would stop attacking Christianity because they are doing the work of the extreme islamists.

No one is attacking Christianity. We want true freedom of religion. Do you not want freedom?

An atheist is a theist whose god’s name is Chance.

They don’t want freedom of religion. They want their god to be worshipped by all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sweden, Denmark, high proportion atheist population. Not all of Europe is so religious.

Denmark is a high trust society. mostly because it is homogeneous.

https://www.helenrussell.co.uk/books/the-year-of-living-danishly/

now in the US diversity means 80% Indians in IT and a token white person.

but to progressives that is ok.

Australia, also high atheist population, also diverse.

You guys keep citing Christian countries. Where are your non-Christian examples? You know the places that never were Christian… Surely you must have at least one paradise where no one celebrates Christmas.

*Uh not really. Not if the majority of a country is atheist. It is more about FREE countries. With true religious freedom, there will probably be some celebration if Christmas and other religion holidays. We don't want forced atheism either. Just freedom.

I'm pretty sure atheist countries suck the (looking at China).

The thing is all these religions have embedded in them social hierarchies and sort of rules of the road as to how people in various classes are to be treated, which is pretty much absent in atheism.

I think it's instructive but many religions consist almost exclusively of elite, but others are popular amongst the masses. Judaism is good example of this where are the poor Jews, I think most just leave (not to pick sides because Muslim countries are known to treat workers the worst.) I'm reminded of the Hannakah festival where the Rabbi made a point to call out every politician and or wealthy entity in attendance.

Anymore when interviewing I'm careful to read the religious vibes, and I'm not even a woman. The preference is for defacto American religion, that celebrates federal holiday's and days off.

There is a difference between a nation that requires atheism and restricts religion, vs one which allows freedom and happens to end up with a large number of agnostics/atheists

The freedom is the difference and the key to success.

For the rest of your comment, you sound awful and prejudiced and isolated. I hire a lot of people and their religion does not factor into it!

How many Muslims do you work for? Put some skin in the game! You sound aweful not realizing that people in the same class as you who hold religious beliefs will not treat people fairly in many cases.

Sounds like you don't want to live in a country that values freedom and has a first amendment like ours. If anti-freedom, there are other places for you.

As long as I am free to criticize Islam as loudly as I want and am free to avoid said Islam practitioners in positions of power. What else is freedom if you don't include that as said freedoms?

Your are free to criticize me for my choices, but you still are just being insincere in your assessment of what freedom is.

Great. So you loudly advocate my right to exclude Jews from positions of power and influence. They are, after all, just semites like the Arab Muslims. Right?