A Christian Nation

President Obama famously assured the public that we "are no longer just a Christian nation." The public sighed a sigh of relief while Christians took offense. Not me. I mean, just what is "a Christian nation"? Surely it's not "a nation that has placed its faith in Christ for its salvation." And, really, no one could genuinely argue that America was or had been for the longest time "a nation that was a disciple of Christ". That is, no standard definition of "Christian" would fit America ... or, to be fair, any nation at all. Since a nation is a political entity and not a human being, a nation cannot be "a Christian".

"Fine, Stan," some are saying, "play at semantics. You know what we mean." Yes, I do. The suggestion is that America is (or was) rooted in values that are predominantly Christian in origin. At least Judeo-Christian. Never mind that a lot of the originators of our country were not Christian themselves. They were still influenced by the vastly predominant Puritans and Pilgrims who came here as Christians for religious freedom. A nation can't be "Christian", but that doesn't mean that its values cannot come from there. At least at one time.

Today we've arrived at the anti-Christian nation. That is, "If you're a Christian, your religion and its values have no place in our laws or values." Mind you, these are not the words used. The words are more like, "We don't allow religion to determine our public laws and values." That was the idea expressed by Justice Anthony Kennedy in the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision last June. "You may have a religious definition of marriage, but we don't allow it here. We define it." His claim that "religious or philosophical premises" are not legitimate grounds for law or public policy sounded sufficiently secular and neutral. That's what they say. What they mean and what they do, however, is simply substitute their religious or philosophical premises for Christian ones and then claim that no such premises are legitimate. Here, consider the dilemma. The argument is that "religious or philosophical premises" are not legitimate for public values. If this is true, then the only legitimate basis for public values ... is no values. Because values are based on religious or philosophical premises. Further, the method is not only self-refuting, it is also impossible. No one approaches anything without values, religious or philosophical. So in the ruling that redefined marriage we were legislated by judicial fiat based on their religious and/or philosophical values. Welcome to the new American regime.

In a sense, Obama was right. No nation can be "a Christian nation". I hope we're clear on this. In another sense, he is also right in that America is no longer dedicated to values that are rooted in Christianity. But don't let them fool you on this. It does not mean we're a nation of more unbiased, neutral values (or, as some would argue, a nation that has better values than Christian ones). They've simply banned Christianity from influencing American values and substituted a new system ... without any real basis for its values. We're not "neutral". We're lost.