Is America a Christian nation?

The question: Is America a Christian nation? This question usually makes the Left go apoplectic. But a recent Gallup poll, which found that 82% of Americans identify themselves as Christians, makes that a legitimate question.

Legally, America isn't a Christian nation. It's not written in our Constitution or an act of Congress. You don't have to be a Christian to be an American citizen.

Culturally, that's a different and more interesting question. We speak of nations made up predominantly of Muslims as Muslim nations. So in that sense if America is predominantly made up of Christians that would make us a Christian nation.

Yet just because people identify themselves as Christians yet never darken a church door, don't believe the basic tenets of the Christian faith or live in accordance Christian teaching that doesn't make them Christians. I think that is increasingly the case in America. Barna Group has done research suggesting that around eight percent of the American people subscribe to the historical, orthodox beliefs of the faith.

And of course then there's the question of what is the influence of Christianity in shaping the cultural beliefs and mores of the nation. I think Christian ideas and ideals are still dominant though they've been significantly eroded by secularism and postmodernism. I'd say culturally we are still a Christian nation but that notion has been eroding in the past few generations.

Normandale Community College's "embrace" of Islam. Where's the "respect for diversity"?

Katherine Kersten ran an interesting column earlier this week on Normandale Community College's turning over their "meditation room" to Moslem students who have turned it into a veritable mosque.

The response of the College's dean of students, Ralph Anderson, was your typical PC response:

Normandale's administration is facilitating the room's Islamization. The college's building crew erected the barrier separating men's and women's sections, according to Ralph Anderson, dean of student affairs. College officials also posted signs at the room's entrance asking students to remove shoes -- a Muslim custom before prayers. This was "basically a courtesy to Muslim students," Anderson said.

Despite the room's Islamic atmosphere, Anderson says it "is open to everyone."

Why is the meditation room segregated by sex? "Muslim students prefer that areas be divided into male and female," he said. "Other students don't care."

Doesn't sex-segregation present a constitutional problem in a public educational institution? "I don't want to comment on that," he said.

Personally, I think public institutions should accommodate religious expression. Modern attempts to sanitize our public institutions from religious expression or content are clearly wrong headed and undermine the important role religion plays in our society. However, Normandale's response goes far beyond accommodating the religious needs of Islamic students. It actually embraces Islam by allowing the "mediation room" to be turned into a mosque.

The College's response highlights the cultural Left's hypocritical treatment of different religious faiths. Let's say a group of fundamentalist Christian students want to take over the room for their religious services, would the school have stood by and let them do it - much less help them do it? No way. But because Islam isn't Christianity, it doesn't seem to be a problem.

Minnesota Monitor and OutFront Minnesota seek to reinterpret the Bible on homosexual behavior

The liberal news blog Minnesota Monitor in a post last weekend highlights efforts of homosexual activists who want to set the record straight on "The Biblical Roots of GLBT Oppression." The article and the activists say biblical texts addressing homosexual behavior don't really mean what they say and the consistent interpretation of those texts for thousands of years have gotten it all wrong.

This concern with the biblical arguments is inspired by incoming Archbishop Nienstedt's recent public statements of Catholic teaching on homosexual behavior.

Who's pushing this respond to traditional biblical teaching on homosexual behavior? None other than OutFront Minnesota. The author of the story says:

I provide very brief interpretations as presented at a Bible Self-Defense Course organized by OutFront Minnesota; the Faith, Family, Fairness Alliance; and Soulforce, as well as information from progressive religious websites. These are not the only interpretations, and are simply my understanding of the progressive arguments presented.

The material includes the usual revisionist work on the Apostle Paul, Leviticus passage and the Sodom and Gomorrah account.

An excellent resource for the orthodox, biblical view of homosexual behavior is Professor Robert Gagnon, Associate Professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Society. His webpage and links provides a treasure trove of information on the topic.

Frankly, I welcome a debate on the biblical views of homosexual behavior. Discussing the topic on the moral, philosophical and theological level will only heighten and deepen the debate. While OutFront Minnesota wants to arm their activists with quick rejoinders to biblical arguments, I think it will only serve to more clearly reveal the fundamental flaws in the arguments and thinking of homosexual activists.

I believe the Bible articulates fundamental truth about human existence, truth, and justice. The more the Bible is discussed the better.

Obsessed with sex.

Social or religious conservatives are usually accused of being obsessed with sex because of their concern about pornography, sex saturated messages in the media, and so forth. I think the ones obsessed with sex are those who have elevated sex to religion in our culture. Those who view sexual expression, nearly any sexual expression at any time, as a form of personal liberation and even salvation.

A case in point is another Star Tribune editorial last week castigating what they refer to as "abstinence only" sex education. The first two lines of their editorial reveals their obsession.

Abstinence-only sex education is ineffective, unrealistic and can actually do more harm than good. Studies show that the "just say no'' approach to informing teens about sex just doesn't work.

Imagine that, encouraging children to wait until they are married to have sex "can actually do more harm than good."

The historical champion of birth control and laissez faire sex, Margaret Sanger, who is an icon of the contraceptive and birth control movement, voiced similar angry objections to abstinence and its advocates. As Chuck Colson noted in his book How Now Shall We Live:

[Sanger] adamantly opposed "the 'moralists' who preached abstinence, self-denial, and suppression," and described Christian ethics as "the cruel morality of self-denial and 'sin'". She hoped to replace it with her own morality of sexual liberation, promising that the release of sexual energies was "the only method" by which a person could find "inner peace and security and beauty."...

And she resorts again to religious language: "Through sex, mankind may attain the great spiritual illumination which will transform the world, which will light up the only path to an earthly paradise."

The Strib editorial goes on to compare US kids to European kids to make the point that with contraceptives US kids can have their cake - have sex - and eat it too- not give birth.

The problem with this approach to sex is sex isn't just about having a good time and avoiding giving birth. There are of course other health issues like STDs which spread regardless of what form of birth control one uses. And there's the debasing of sex by making it a leisure sport which does untold emotional and moral damage to people who treat it as such. What sex is ultimately about is uniting a man and a woman in a marriage relationship which bears the fruit of children.

Finally, the hypocrisy of the Star Tribune's position is revealed in the last paragraph of the editorial:

The president has based this aspect of his health care policy on ideology and theology rather than what is best for teens. Congress can do better by devoting federal dollars to inclusive, comprehensive sex education.

They accuse their opponents of being driven by ideology and theology when in fact that's exactly what they are driven by.

The question is which side is right? Which position is true? In this case I say look at the fruit of the two views. ("Wisdom is proved right by her actions.") Free love and free sex have never been free as we see from the sexual revolution, e.g. death, disease, despair and emotional damage. As opposed to the fruit of chastity and fidelity to marriage, e.g. faithfulness, children, hope, health, commitment and a future. That's ultimately the choice we face.

Why would they vote to recognize Islam but not Christianity?

From FRC

Last night, the House of Representatives voted on a benign resolution, H.R. 847, "recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith." Not surprisingly, the initiative, sponsored by Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), passed overwhelmingly--despite nine Democrats who voted against it and ten members (nine Democrats and one Republican) who voted "present."

Interestingly, the 17 Democrats who voted either "nay" or "present" weren't motivated by the so-called "separation of church and state," since they were seen formally recognizing Islam back in October. H.R. 635, sponsored by Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Tex.), recognized the "commencement of Ramadan, the Islamic holy month of fasting and spiritual renewal, and commended Muslims in the United States and throughout the world for their faith." Perhaps these congressional scrooges took issue with the wording of the Christmas resolution.

Or did they have a bigger problem rejecting "bigotry and persecution directed against Christians, both in the United States and worldwide"? Maybe they disagreed with the expression of their "deepest respect to American Christians and Christians throughout the world." Whatever their reasoning, these 17 Democrats have some explaining to do.

How can they possibly promote Islam in the same breath that they attack Christianity, the very faith that buoyed our nation at its founding? The following voted "no" on H.R. 847 and "yes" on H.R. 635: Reps. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Diana DeGette (D-Co.), Alcee Hastings (D-Fl.), Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Fortney Stark (D-Calif.) and Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.). Those who voted "present" on H.R. 847 and "yes" on H.R. 635 include: Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.), Barney Frank (D-Mass.), Rush Holt (D-N.J.), Donald Payne (D-N.J.), Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and John Yarmuth (D-Ky.).