<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content="MSHTML 5.00.2919.6307" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY bottomMargin=0 leftMargin=3 rightMargin=3 topMargin=0>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>The United States is <EM>not</EM> a "Christian nation."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The majority of our citizens are Christian, Christianity had a great deal
to do with the foundations of how we define our principles. In fact, the very
idea of voting to decide the best course of action came from the dissenting
Protestant churches, before it reached civil government. But our founders
made a deliberate decision that the nation, the state, the government, would not
endorse any faith, or make any faith its own official foundation. That was a
decision made by men (women were not formally permitted to be part, although
many made themselves a part anyway) who were for the most part Christians, and
among other things concluded that this was best for their faith as well as for
good civil governance.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>At the time we decided that, Canada, England, the entire British Empire,
had an official church, the Anglican Church, with the King (or Queen) of England
as its head (rather than the Pope, and, as some dissenting Protestants used to
say, rather than the Lord Jesus Christ).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If Canada is classified by the United Nations as "not a Christian nation,"
it is probably because Canada has disestablished the Anglican Church as the
official church of the government. Without an established church, there is no
way to define a nation as being of one specific faith. In Saudi Arabia, by
contrast, the House of Saud are botht he ruling family <EM>and</EM> the official
guardians of the holy shrines of Mecca and Medina.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Nations which once had, or still technically have, an official
state-supported church now have overwhelming majorities that don't bother to go
to church at all. Inthe United States, where church attendance has
<EM>never</EM> been enforced or encouraged by the state, we have the highest
level of church participation. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You can see this difference in how ours laws treat a subject like gay
marriage. In Canada, and Europe, having got rid of the power of the official
church, there is an attitude of "why not?" In the U.S., where the churches are
independent (and plural) every church feels free to advance what it believes to
be best. In Canada, some church people wonder whether the simple statement Quama
made, that homosexuality is against the Bible, could be legally defined as "hate
speech" and subject to prosecution. In the U.S., our courts simply have no
jurisdiction at all over matters of faith and doctrine. That is so well
established that no court is going to reconsider it.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>That is a good trade-off. Someone entrusted with government authority may
not USE that authority to advance their own faith, beyond what they could do as
an individual citizen in any case, but the government -- no matter what is the
current cultural fad -- cannot interfere in citizens practicing their own
faith.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I agree with Quama's prayer request, with one picky little point of
clarification: we are praying that those who <EM>have</EM> authority will have
the wisdom to use it well, not praying blindly that God will bless their work
with success, no matter how misguided, or increase their power, not matter how
misused.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Siarlys</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>P.S. The whole gay question raises an interesting contrast: since it is a
biological side-show at best, and there <EM>is</EM> a norm to human emotions and
behavior which is <EM>not</EM> gay, for the majority of us who are not tempted,
it is the only sin we don't have to worry about.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>