What other Islamic nations offer freedom of religion moe.ron?

And while America was not created with Christianity as its official religion, it is a country that is steeped in Christian history. Quite a bit of the populace has selected leaders based on this. There have been 4 great awakenings (see Robert Fogel) that have controlled the fundamental structure of the state and the issues which are voted on. At the same time, it can be said that America is diverse in this age - especially since certain migration restrictions were lifted in the 1960s (see Diana Eck).

Hence the summary is:
1) America has a strong link to Christianity while Christianity is not the official religion.
2) There is a sense of tolerance that is coupled with the influx of immigrants in the last half of this century which led to diversification of religions
3) This sense of tolerance and freedom of religion is rare in Muslim countries and actually the opposite - a downright contempt for non-Muslim dhimis - has occured in most nations leading to repression (especially in the examples stated earlier of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran).

-Rudey

To totally put aside Christianity even as playing any role in the foundation of this country is ridiculous. Ethical and moral problems are driven mainly through technology and technology has allowed for a whole new set of issues in this day that conflict with the views (Christian or not) from centuries earlier. Very few people would argue that the founders of this nation would be fighting to keep abortion legal for example.

Christianity (and the flip side) have had a strong relationship to America since it's founding, now, and will in the future. The rise in religion really came in that First Great Awakening period. Christianity however, was not the "official" religion of the country in the past. Who knows if it will be in the future.

-Rudey

If Malaysia does offer freedom of religion, it's news to me. It's also news to my sorority sister, who was legally killed by her husband in Malaysia!!

What does that have to do with the freedom to choose a religion? :confused:

Islam is the dominant religion there, but I have a friend who grew up there whose family is Buddhist, and I know Hinduism and Christianity are also practiced there.

Those religions can be practiced in quite a few countries but the governments can still be repressive of those that don't practice the majority religion. There is not full freedom of religion.

-Rudey

Obviously, the very mention of "Malaysia" hits a hot button for me. I know that people can practice other religions, but there are also huge signs saying, "Muslims may not enter here" or "Christians not permitted here" etc. I'll be the first to say that I'm talking out of emotion, and probably out of turn. But I will go to my grave making sure that people don't forget my sister - the last letter I received from her was smuggled out of the country, and she begged me to tell people about Malaysia.

I'll shut up now.

Again, that's not what I'm saying - I'm merely pointing out that its role was not primary compared to other interests. I'll be the last person to out the learning model of perception and application. However, the fact that a relatively large number of influencial framers had serious disagreements with the Christian churches of the time makes it difficult for me to assign more than a tertiary role (although I will not dispute that role's existence or influence).

And I am saying it did play a role and the issues of today were not around at the time of the framing of the constitution.

People can beat this all they want but what is the discussion about at this point? Does Connie disagree that the US did not have Christianity as its official religion? Do you and others disagree the character and policies of this country are STRONGLY influenced by Christianity?

What is the discussion about? To me it just seems like personal attacks, sometimes veiled, over and over without point. The truth of the matter is quite a few people are in this thread, on each and every side, knowing nothing about the topics of history nor religion.

-Rudey

I'll go with this - it's much more of a middle ground than has been suggested.

Also, the Founders/Framers were very good politicians; after the experience with Great Britain, they weren't going to start alienating people on the basis of religion.

This has been a long-standing debate in history, so we're not going to answer it here on GC (not to say there aren't some smart people on this site). It makes for an interesting discussion though.

Not arguing at all. I agree completely, with the caveat that the laws (and there were, I think, more than a few random ones) were, to some degree, pulled in from the English common law many states inherited and otherwise based on "infringing on others." As for federal law, laws of this kind are (or were until recently) typically state laws, not federal, unless some federal issue, like crossing state lines, was implicated.

At the risk of throwing a monkey wrench into this discussion, I'm not sure this is totally accurate. What they weren't going to start doing was getting the federal government involved in alienating people on the basis of religion. This was partially due to historical experience and partially due to the belief that any "establishment" question was for the states, not the federal government, to decide. Some states -- Massachusetts comes to mind, if my mind is working correctly -- had established churches well after the adoption of the First Amendment.

That Amendment, of course, only provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It wasn't until the passage of the 14th Amendment, after the Civil War, that the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses were made applicable to the states.

Just to muddy it up a little more.

Sorry, that is more what I was thinking. I just didn't express myself as well as I would have liked.

Collin
- I knew that history degree would come in handy some day.

This seems non sequitur, unless you can tie that in for me - I don't get how that relates to any sort of discussion on the influence of Christianity on the US in re: laws/founding/framers. (also this is a massive hijack by this point)

Even with specific issues (as you posited w/ abortion), I can't see how that influences discussion.

She claimed the US as a "Christian nation" and that our nation was framed after implicitly Christian principles. The implication came that the nation (and its laws, NOT state law) was based on "Biblical laws", an assertion that I can't imagine you would support.

Does this influence make the US a "Christian nation"?

Does this mean constitutional law should be based on Christian influence? How about common law?

Is this influence within the bounds of the ideals the nation was founded upon?

I'm not denying the influence, but in nothing I've ever read has led me to believe these questions can be answered in the positive (as has been implied by others, hence my only interest in the thread). I can begin to piece together an argument for the third, based upon a majority rule that does not preclude any particular minority, but relatively menial arguments re: secular government make the leap too far, for my mind.

Obviously my degree isn't in history, so feel free to give examples and I'll start the Hegelian dialectic in motion.

It relates in that you can't look at one point in time and judge a nation by that one single point in time.

I do not support that our nation was based on biblical laws, but I strongly believe that the nation is forever tied to Christianity.

The First Great Awakening (1730) led to the American Revolution.

The Second Great Awakening (1800) led to that whole abolitionist and temperance thang.

The Third Great Awakening (1890) led to the welfare state.

The Fourth Great Awakening (Now) is a spiritual push.

Each of these are very broad but link America, religion, and Christianity strongly.

Also I'm not sure if I'm understanding you in that I'm hijacking the thread, but the topic of Christianity's link to America is somewhat of a hijack itself to "are there nice conservatives out there?"

As for law being written based on Christianity alone, no I don't think it should and has been, but it surely has influenced the law and our policies strongly.

Edited to add: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/256626.html

-Rudey

OK, fair point. No disagreement at all.

Wasn't assigning the hijack to you - just pointing out that we're in the middle of an intense hijack (which is immensely more interesting than the original topic).

I won't disagree - influence is an acceptible term, but to quantify the influence in such a way as to take such drastic steps as Connie and others have seems harsh, and a bit quick on the trigger.

For myself to reach the conclusions she has, the influence would have to reach the levels I inquired about - which would, to my mind, seriously violate the vision that the nation was founded upon (to tie this into a hypothesis).