Is the US a Christian or secular country? Depends on how you figure. Constitutionally it is secular, but in real life it is historically Christian. What the document says will always be secondary to the people that make up the political entity. If the population is an overwhelmingly Christian one, then it will be a Christian country. If the population is overwhelmingly a Muslim one, then it will be a Muslim country. It is possible though that laws against certain religions could suppress them like Communist rule did in former Soviet Union, where as soon as the regime falls, the national religion flourishes openly once again. One could argue that FSU was never really atheistic, just a Christian country under atheist rule.
The question to ask ourselves is “Should Dixie have a state religion or should it be officially secular?”
I have an easy answer: Secularism is a lie and no state will ever be secular in reality, only on paper.
Secularism will necessarily take one of two forms:
- oppressive of any traditional religion as in FSU, and probably replacing it with a de facto invented religion, such as liberalism.
- a free-for-all of religions where the various practiced religions are competing for dominance on every front, including the things taught in schools, the symbols on town seals, the prayers at presidential inauguration, discrimination lawsuits against businesses, etc.
If we do not want to frame our charter documents around the lie of secularism, then we must agree on what will be the dominant religion and what alternatives will be tolerated at all. It is important to be intolerant of certain religions or we will end up like many European countries–officially Christian, but rapidly becoming Muslim. It matters little what the document says if it does not dictate which people get to live there.
To be plain, let me say it in other words: There can be no true separation of church and state because the state is inseparable from the people, and the majority of the people will always have a religion. Therefore, the state cannot be separated from religion, so we should pick one to be the official religion. We cannot be ambivalent on the question of religion, just like we cannot be ambivalent on the question of race. “Freedom of Religion” just means that the dominant religion must cede space to its competitors with little hope of reciprocity.
- Absolute freedom of religion does not allow us to defend our corner of Christendom against competing religions or ideologies. A tolerant Christianity is placed at a disadvantage against any others, especially a belligerent competitor like Islam or Communism.
- It is antithetical to Christianity to force Christian confession or observance. Christianity is about sincere spiritual conversion, while Islam is all about submission. Obviously submission can be forced but Salvation cannot.
We want to maintain a culturally Christian society where the overwhelming majority of individuals are sincere, freely confessing Christians. We want everyone to be a Christian, but we cannot make anyone be a Christian.
The best solution I can think of is to constitutionally abridge freedom of religion to historically Western worldviews that play reasonably well together and who do not compete too hard against Christianity. We can afford more flexibility with religions than we can with races because an individual (or his children) may change religions, but cannot change races. For instance, two racially Dixian atheists may have a child that becomes a Christian as an adult and vice versa. But two racial Jews cannot have children that grow up to become racial Dixians.
There are thousands of religions in the world today with new ones continually being invented, so it is a losing strategy to simply maintain a list of banned religions. A better strategy would be to maintain a shortlist of approved religions with all others being banned, or at least easily bannable upon popular request. We must remember that Islam, while being the most obvious example, is not the only religion we want to keep out. Do we want Dixie to become a haven for every crackpot religion under the sun? I know I don’t.
The Mormon Question:
It is to our advantage to eliminate Mormonism from Dixie, both because of its competitive nature against Christianity and because it’s core doctrines are so easily proven false:
- The Amerinds are not descended from seafaring Israelites.
- The Book of Abraham has been proven to be laughably inaccurate, and apparently a total fabrication.
- Much, much more.
Obviously it is usually hard for an adult to abandon the faith of his childhood. It can even be hard for a young Earth creationist Christian to give up Young Earth Creationism, but the Mormon religion is in a serious crisis, and it is not in the interest of Dixie to give it space. Were Mormons as obnoxious as stereotypical atheists, it might have been beneficial to keep a few around to goad sensible people toward Christianity, but given that Mormons are generally respected as good neighbors, strong families, clean and polite, etc, they are honey compared to the atheist vinegar.
As an unraveling religion, Mormonism presents its adherents with two options:
- Admit their error and begin to cope (hopefully turning to Christianity).
- Continue to double down despite embarrassing evidence.
Multiple generations of doubling down despite mounting evidence will inevitably widen the chasm between Mormonism and Christianity to the point they become an increasingly alien, increasingly eccentric tribe living among us, so we really should refrain from tolerating them out of pity for “such nice people.” Let them become nice Christians or nicely leave. This will present churches with the opportunity to reach out to converting Mormons. Should anyone argue that the exodus of Mormons will break up families, remind them of the interfaith families that will be healed as Mormons convert.
- Do we want another ethnoreligious tribe living among us?
- Do we want them trying to convert our sons and daughters?
- We know Mormons have a high fertility rate; do we want Dixie to become a Mormon country over time?
The Atheist Question:
Historically, Christianity, Deism, agnosticism, and even atheism have been able to get along in the West without wrecking it, though Christianity has always been the dominant religion. We have no evidence that things would work so well were one of the other options dominant. Many atheists have been pretty hostile to Christianity, so it is debatable whether we want to even include Atheism on that list. Also a certain tribe has a penchant for being atheist/communist, so a constitutional ban on atheism might be an extra layer of protection against infiltration from that tribe. But a ban on atheism, would probably just mean that people who confess atheism today would magically become agnostics, so the ban would gain little, and might make atheism attractive as a forbidden fruit. It could even be beneficial to keep a few militant atheists around as negative examples to drive people toward Christianity. After all, their children (the few that they have) may grow up to become preachers like Bill Murray.
To settle the separation of church and state controversies, we should probably Constitutionally name Christianity as the official religion, with Deism, agnosticism, (and perhaps) atheism as tolerated alternatives, and explicitly banning all others.
The good quality of Deism and agnosticism is that they are generally not practiced, so they are not aggressively antiChristian like a practiced religion would be. One may think of them as one step away from Christianity, where other options like Judaism, Paganism, etc. would be antithetical to Christianity. Atheists sometimes share the same quality of nonpractice, but often feverishly practice antireligionism–from the safe haven of Christian countries of course.
A benefit to this approach is that naming Christianity as the state religion like this, with the promise to kick out Muslims should be wildly popular among Dixians upon first hearing the message. How could any mainstream party today compete against this message? Certainly the cuckservatives in the Republican party can’t.