Is the US a Christian nation?

[Enai de a lukal]

I have no idea what this means but I am sure it is wrong.

This more or less sums up your entire position. You have no idea, but you're certain nevertheless. Pretty brave to be certain where one has no idea. (wait... was "brave" the word I was looking for?)

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Theistic evolution has plenty of explanatory power.

Lol... What? Theistic evolution has zero explanatory power, above and beyond mere evolution. In fact, it has LESS explanatory power, since it adds new elements to be explained which weren't present to begin with (namely, this god character).

 

[1robin]

Theistic evolution has plenty of explanatory power.

You completely missed the point. I was pointing out that biological processes explain nothing. Theories about them do. Unfortunately the theory of evolution is as ambiguous as snake oil and is said to explain everything and that renders it meaningless. as a man made theory (not as a biological process). Are you suggesting theistic evolution is true? I believe it is and it would explain a lot but your side does not usually go that route and the person I was giving that statement to was not.

 

[1robin]

Lol... What? Theistic evolution has zero explanatory power, above and beyond mere evolution. In fact, it has LESS explanatory power, since it adds new elements to be explained which weren't present to begin with (namely, this god character).

The inclusion of a God into any theory can't possibly reduce it's explanatory power and scope. It can only infinitely expand it. However since evolution is as versatile as an omnipotent, all knowing being, it may not be in need of a God as it is apparently a God as it exists in theory its self.

 

[Agnostic75]

I can easily use another example. Today, if 1,000 newborn babies with Christian parents were raised by people of many different religions all over the world, it is probable that some of them who would have become Christians if they had been raised by their Christian parents would not become Christians. Surely chance and circumstance partly determine what people believe. If you had been transported at birth back in time to the time of Attila the Hun, and had been raised, and well-treated by him, your morals would surely have been much different than they are today.

The above is a repeat or so similar to a former post I will disregard it.

More accurately, what I said was a much better argument than the argument that I previously used, and you know that you cannot adequately refute it. Unless you reply to those arguments, it would be reasonable for me to claim that I won that argument.

There is no way that chance and circumstance do not partly determine what people believe.

As for the last sentence I did not say God has freewill but I believe he does. What would restrict his will?

Quite obviously, his nature. God cannot lie. He does not choose to tell the truth since choice implies that there is an option to lie. God does not have the option to lie. He must tell the truth. Therefore, he should not be complimented for telling the truth.

 

[1robin]

This more or less sums up your entire position. You have no idea, but you're certain nevertheless. Pretty brave to be certain where one has no idea. (wait... was "brave" the word I was looking for?)

I almost did not type that bit of humor because I thought that you would do exactly what you are doing with it. However I thought you could not be that petty, trivial, and predictable. I was wrong.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The theory is apparently not bounded by anything including evidence.

This is a ridiculous and patently false claim. This is like saying automobile usage is not bound by fuel.

It is said to do mutually exclusive things and is distorted into any shape needed.

Source this, then.

It is sort of the modern equivalent to the snake oil cure alls of the 1800s. It can change tires and cure heartburn. The theory in many places it's applied is as useless as snake oil. It is sort of like a theoretical universal solvent. Anything that is dissolved must have some of it in it or on it. Yet no container (reality) can hold it. As a theory it is a theoretical term that means whatever a proponent wishes it to and then points out how comprehensive it is. What ever evolution actually is it certainly is not accurately represented by the conglomerate of theories with that label.

Mere rhetoric. And everything you wrote here is simply false.

Are you suggesting that the inability to perpetuate the species is conducive to survival?

I've already mentioned what appears to be the case; in animal populations threatened by a scarcity of resources, the incidence of homosexuality spikes; thus, homosexuality appears to be a defense mechanism against overpopulation. Evolution isn't always about reproducing as many times as possible, but assuring that ones genes continue to be passed on by protecting ones existing population.

See how well it works when we see what the facts actually are, rather than deciding what they must be based on our intuitions and religious beliefs? This is why science allows us to build spaceships and supercomputers, and religious superstition doesn't.

I have no bias in this context.

Count down to self-contradiction in 3...2...1...

I know homosexuality is not a plus concerning survival.

You know this how, telepathy? Omniscience? Did God send you an email about it?

Silly, silly, silly.

I have no idea what this means but I am sure it is wrong.

It means that, contrary to your fantasy, there is very specific evidence which would disprove evolution- fossils chronologically out of place, irreducibly complex structures, and so on- so contrary to evolution being immune from disproof, it is eminently susceptible. The cool part is, this disconfirming evidence continues to not be found.

 

[Agnostic75]

You completely missed the point. I was pointing out that biological processes explain nothing. Theories about them do. Unfortunately the theory of evolution is as ambiguous as snake oil and is said to explain everything and that renders it meaningless. as a man made theory (not as a biological process). Are you suggesting theistic evolution is true? I believe it is and it would explain a lot but your side does not usually go that route and the person I was giving that statement to was not.

Since I am an agnostic, I believe that theistic evolution is a reasonable possibility.

Do you accept common descent? If so, then you must believe that God has caused, and allowed natural selection to create, and maintain homosexuality.

Michael Behe says:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives." The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

It is important to note that Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," not an atheist, and that some ancient Greeks who lived thousands of years ago accepted common descent.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

The inclusion of a God into any theory can't possibly reduce it's explanatory power and scope

Of course it does; in the case of theistic evolution, you have the very same explanans (since theistic evolution doesn't postulate any mechanism over and above the ones evolutionary theory already includes) but now have added an additional explanandum; God.

And on a very obvious level, "God did it" is no more a genuine explanation than "a wizard did it".

 

[Agnostic75]

I can easily use another example. Today, if 1,000 newborn babies with Christian parents were raised by people of many different religions all over the world, it is probable that some of them who would have become Christians if they had been raised by their Christian parents would not become Christians. Surely chance and circumstance partly determine what people believe.

The above is a repeat or so similar to a former post I will disregard it.

More accurately, what I said was a much better argument than the argument that I previously used, and you know that you cannot adequately refute it. One reason that you refused to reply to those arguments is because my previous theory mentioned going back in time, which cannot be done, but my revised theory would easily be proven to be valid if it was tested.

It is a given that many children who were raised by Christian parents in the U.S., and became Christians, would not have become Christians if they had been raised from just after birth by people of other religions in many countries. It is a fact that parental influence is frequently a big factor regarding the worldview that young people choose. A landmark book that it titled "One Nation Under God," by Kosmin and Lachman, shows that geography, gender, family, and age are important factors that influence what people believe. The book is praised by Billy Graham, and by John Cardinal O'Connor. I suggest that you buy the book. Some reviewers have said that it is the best documented book of its kind in the world. The authors do not make a case for, or against religion. All that they do is report the results of lots of documented research. The book leaves no doubts whatsoever that chance and circumstance are important factors regarding what people believe. All that the authors basically said about choosing a worldview was that while they would not presume to claim why people choose their worldviews, apparently geography, gender, family, and age must at least have something to do with why people choose their worldviews. I have the book, so if you want to buy it, and read it, we can discuss it.

It is also a given that some skeptics who have died without accepting the God of the Bible would have accepted him if they had been transported at birth back in time to Jerusalem, in the time of Jesus, assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus performed many miracles.

Unless you reply to those arguments, it would be reasonable for me to claim that I won them.

There is no way that chance and circumstance do not partly determine what people believe.

As for the last sentence I did not say God has freewill but I believe he does. What would restrict his will?

Quite obviously, his nature. God cannot lie. He does not choose to tell the truth since choice implies that there is an option to lie. God does not have the option to lie. He must tell the truth. Therefore, he should not be complimented for telling the truth.

 

[1robin]

This is a ridiculous and patently false claim. This is like saying automobile usage is not bound by fuel.

No that is an analogy designed to confine comments made in about something that analogy does not describe. A car won't move without fuel but life will do what life does even if the super stretcher evolution theory had never existed. In fact virtually nothing worth having would be lost. No surgery need be cancelled, corn will still grow and even modifications will still be made to it, the UN will not have to adjourn (though that is a catch 22).

Source this, then.

Tell me which one of these is untrue. Evolution explains the slow miniscule changes in life over very long periods of time. Evolution explain all major body types appearing in a geologic instant without any significant precursor evolution. Quite the theory.

Mere rhetoric. And everything you wrote here is simply false.

Is claiming something false which isn't and giving not the slightest hint of evidence nor even an attempt at a reason less rhetorical.

I've already mentioned what appears to be the case; in animal populations threatened by a scarcity of resources, the incidence of homosexuality spikes; thus, homosexuality appears to be a defense mechanism against overpopulation. Evolution isn't always about reproducing as many times as possible, but assuring that ones genes continue to be passed on by protecting ones existing population.

I have heard two other explanations for homosexuality. One given by another poster and one I looked up. Neither mentioned a single detail you did. In fact neither were the slightest bit similar and gave a completely different explanations. Forget that indicates that evolutionists will say anything to apply evolution to whatever reality coughs up, lets examine your version among the myriad out there. Nothing evolves that fast. When an insect group is noticed to be resistant to the same chemical that killed thousand of them a few years earlier that is not evolution. It can't possibly be evolution. Though it was a very common example given of evolution constantly. There exists almost no chance that a bug will have the exact mutation needed to resist a chemical at the exact moment needed, and there exists no chance that will occur over and over again. What actually occurs is the bugs that already had a resistance to the chemical are the only ones left to breed. No new genetic information. Nothing evolved. One of two things must be true in your explanation. Homosexuality is mandated by choice alone and in certain circumstances large groups choose to be gay to avoid over population. BTW how are monkeys calculating all this? Or homosexuality is genetically caused and would not happen in the time needed to allow for the pond drying up. That also would not explain why it is a common practice within a species (or whatever group name is correct)n and not only true of regions. We could test your theory by taking away resources from fast reproducing forms of life and see if all the fruit fly's turn gay or something. Try it and give me the data. Since your claim lies within all mighty, arbiter of all truth science then that is your burden.

See how well it works when we see what the facts actually are, rather than deciding what they must be based on our intuitions and religious beliefs? This is why science allows us to build spaceships and supercomputers, and religious superstition doesn't.

What? Read you statement. You said appeared to be, is that the threshold for defining fact in your world. What do you mean appeared to be anyway? This is of the type of claim that is either obviously true or false. Or are you saying it appears to be true because within evolution whatever exists is evidence it is true?

Count down to self-contradiction in 3...2...1...

You know this how, telepathy? Omniscience? Did God send you an email about it?

What does not allow for reproduction can't possibly be a plus for survival unless you mean hours or days of survival. In fact I do not even see how what you said works even in theory. What exactly are you saying is going on here? Do the monkeys get together and hold a conference with Dawkin's once they get all the data in from their resource measurements and put it on their monkey thumb drives (non-opposable thumb drives) break out the slide rules and compute what percentage will convert for the good of the tribe? Give me an example I can go observe this wonder occurring in nature.

Silly, silly, silly.

No, what is silly is trying to imagine a bunch of whales getting together and figuring out who is going to switch hit because the seals are in short supply.

It means that, contrary to your fantasy, there is very specific evidence which would disprove evolution- fossils chronologically out of place, irreducibly complex structures, and so on- so contrary to evolution being immune from disproof, it is eminently susceptible. The cool part is, this disconfirming evidence continues to not be found.

Fossils out of place. There exist millions. The problem is the amount they must be out of place is just a little bit further than the farthest one known. Until you show a biological electric motor not only is reducible in the fossil record but was reduced and we have the record it is theoretically irreducible. WE should not have Cambrian explosions given evolution as it was known have occurred right up until it was found. Then the theory simply morphed into something to account for it. You can't stop a theoretical boggart (if you get that reference my time was not wasted). When the tree model was around we should not have found bush model evidence, when we did it morphed into a bush, until forest evidence was found, then it became a forest. If a concept has no bounds it is meaningless. Call it anything and everything and get it over with. There have been boots found in Coal supposed to predate man many times over, tools found is layers even older, organic material found in dinosaur fossils, in fact the list is almost inexhaustible but I am more interested in exactly how your self preservation gay conversion theory occurs.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

No that is an analogy designed to confine comments made in about something that analogy does not describe. A car won't move without fuel but life will do what life does even if the super stretcher evolution theory had never existed. In fact virtually nothing worth having would be lost.

Claiming that a scientific theory (which, by definition, cannot exist without confirming evidence) like evolution operates without evidence is exactly like saying an automobile operates without fuel.

Evolution explain all major body types appearing in a geologic instant

Cite an instance of this. (I won't be holding my breath)

Is claiming something false which isn't and giving not the slightest hint of evidence nor even an attempt at a reason less rhetorical.

Yes, since everything you wrote was CONTRARY to all well-establish results and expert consensus. Claiming that everything we think is true is actually false shoulders a heavier burden than claiming that what we think is true is true.

Homosexuality is mandated by choice alone

Are you trying to say things that are the opposite of what our best and most current scientific results indicate? All indications are that homosexuality is NOT a matter of choice. And not just scientific results, but plain common sense; assuming you are a heterosexual male (forgive me if I'm wrong), do you think it is physically possible for you choose to become sexually aroused (i.e get an erection) by another man? I am a heterosexual male, and I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that such a choice is not possible for me; I simply cannot become sexually aroused by men, no matter how hard I might try. Physical responses like erections and sexual attraction are not a matter of choice.

and in certain circumstances large groups choose to be gay to avoid over population. BTW how are monkeys calculating all this?

This is a strawman.

What? Read you statement. You said appeared to be, is that the threshold for defining fact in your world. What do you mean appeared to be anyway? This is of the type of claim that is either obviously true or false. Or are you saying it appears to be true because within evolution whatever exists is evidence it is true?

The point is that you're basing your claim, that homosexuality is not adaptive, on your gut instinct and your religious beliefs- you're determining what the facts must be, prior to actually looking to see what they are.

Science takes the opposite approach- lets look and see what the facts are, then decide what is the case. And using THIS approach, homosexuality looks adaptive.

What does not allow for reproduction can't possibly be a plus for survival unless you mean hours or days of survival.

That doesn't even make sense.

In fact I do not even see how what you said works even in theory. What exactly are you saying is going on here? Do the monkeys get together and hold a conference with Dawkin's once they get all the data in from their resource measurements and put it on their monkey thumb drives (non-opposable thumb drives) break out the slide rules and compute what percentage will convert for the good of the tribe? Give me an example I can go observe this wonder occurring in nature.

Read a little about kin selection. Not all adaptations contribute directly to the fitness of a specific individual. And I don't know exactly how it works, but I do know its been observed quite a few times in laboratory settings that, when threatened with scarce resources, the next generation of rats has an exponentially higher rate of homosexuality. This strongly supports the thesis I mentioned earlier, that homosexuality has been selected for as a means to control overpopulation.

No, what is silly is trying to imagine a bunch of whales getting together and figuring out who is going to switch hit because the seals are in short supply.

I agree, that is silly. Fortunately neither I nor anyone else thinks this is what occurs.

Fossils out of place. There exist millions.

Give one example.

There have been boots found in Coal supposed to predate man many times over, tools found is layers even older, organic material found in dinosaur fossils, in fact the list is almost inexhaustible

Source this, then.

 

[1robin]

Claiming that a scientific theory (which, by definition, cannot exist without confirming evidence) like evolution operates without evidence is exactly like saying an automobile operates without fuel.

Yet again this not describe what I said. A theory may have evidence. However it may still be false in many aspects. It can also not be based on evidence in aspects of it and those were the aspects I was discussing or potentially was. I have heard countless people and scholars suggest non-theistic evolution is true. Not a theory but a fact. Yet no evidence exists for the non-theistic part and the entire theory collapses in ruin without evidence abiogenesis occurred or ever could. Where is it?

Cite an instance of this. (I won't be holding my breath)

An example of what? The obvious fact evolution must account for it? Or the fact it occurred which is conceded by everyone I have ever heard in any discussion that included it? Never heard of the Cambrian explosion? Or some aspect of it? I don't know what you are contending with.

Yes, since everything you wrote was CONTRARY to all well-establish results and expert consensus. Claiming that everything we think is true is actually false shoulders a heavier burden than claiming that what we think is true is true.

This statement is of the exact same type as mine which was the exact same type as yours. Whatever fault you apply to mine is just as true as yours. You claim I gave no evidence and was wrong in a statement with no evidence. That won't do.

Are you trying to say things that are the opposite of what our best and most current scientific results indicate? All indications are that homosexuality is NOT a matter of choice. And not just scientific results, but plain common sense; assuming you are a heterosexual male (forgive me if I'm wrong), do you think it is physically possible for you choose to become sexually aroused (i.e get an erection) by another man? I am a heterosexual male, and I can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that such a choice is not possible for me; I simply cannot become sexually aroused by men, no matter how hard I might try. Physical responses like erections and sexual attraction are not a matter of choice.

I was saying that given your example only certain options are possible regardless of what anyone has said. Within my view your inability to be interested in men is perfectly logical and accounted for. That does not help the case that homosexuality is mandated by biology. Since you guys are all over the map and I can't keep straight which version of the "truth" is true for you. First do you claim homosexuality is mandated by biology? The heck erections are not choice. Though they can be either difficult (I almost said hard) or easy. Even in the rare case they are impossible for biological reasons it is not a result of an evolutionary but a breakdown in operation sort of problem. I stated that clumsily but you should be easily able to grasp it anyway.

This is a strawman.

Oh Lord the ever present ally of your side. The hyperbolic use (whether they are true or apply) or argumentation legality. Fine the post is too long anyway. Actually I went back and looked and this is not even potentially a straw man. There were two points BTW, neither a straw man. In any quick adaptation it is far more a result of intelligent response to data and not slow evolution. It depends on just what privation is discussed.

The point is that you're basing your claim, that homosexuality is not adaptive, on your gut instinct and your religious beliefs- you're determining what the facts must be, prior to actually looking to see what they are.

Actually that is no the case at all. The first thing that popped into my head when contemplating this was whether examples existed of those who claimed to have been gay have left it behind completely. My faith made the answer quick but did not help with the question at all.

Science takes the opposite approach- lets look and see what the facts are, then decide what is the case. And using THIS approach, homosexuality looks adaptive.

There are as many approaches to science as in anything. Some pure fiction and some absolute. I can't think of one area where science conflicts with faith that is not at the fiction end of the scale. Multiverses, abiogenesis, macro evolution (though it is not all that conflicting and less on the bad side of the scale it is none the less faith based), what exactly happened before the historical period, etc.. are far more faith than anything else.

That doesn't even make sense.

Then you may not be able to detect sense efficiently. What sense it makes will depend on the study of actual things under observation that prove your lack of resources theory out. That is actually coming at some point I hope. You have already said that it must exist and I have asked twice.

Read a little about kin selection. Not all adaptations contribute directly to the fitness of a specific individual. And I don't know exactly how it works, but I do know its been observed quite a few times in laboratory settings that, when threatened with scarce resources, the next generation of rats has an exponentially higher rate of homosexuality. This strongly supports the thesis I mentioned earlier, that homosexuality has been selected for as a means to control overpopulation.

Give me a link to rat conversion then.

I agree, that is silly. Fortunately neither I nor anyone else thinks this is what occurs.

I agree it was silly but I do not see how it was not an accurate but satirical representation of what you claimed. BTW your the only one on any site I know of or of any kind who has put forth that idea in my experience. Maybe your lab rat link will help out here.

Give one example.


Source this, then.

Before I do, how many examples and of what degree of discrepancy would I need to get, for you to admit that evolution while I am certain is true is also not that well quantified, or understood and countless anomalies and inconsistencies exist. I need motivation.

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

So...is it a Christian nation, or not?!?!

M.V.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[1robin]

Namaste,

So...is it a Christian nation, or not?!?!

M.V.

What language is your name in? I have given much evidence in every category I would think anyone would use to determine it. We are or were before 1960. Since that was my entire burden I just followed where the conversations went. If you are expecting any issue to be resolved finally, or for a thread to be consistently followed you are in the wrong place. I have seen no one from any side convert to another side in any debate. I will however concede points at times. However I have noticed a non-theist will never concede anything. It is like their house of cards will implode if one ray of light gets in. Forums are full of people very committed to their side.

 

[Agnostic75]

You completely missed the point. I was pointing out that biological processes explain nothing. Theories about them do. Unfortunately the theory of evolution is as ambiguous as snake oil and is said to explain everything and that renders it meaningless. as a man made theory (not as a biological process). Are you suggesting theistic evolution is true? I believe it is and it would explain a lot but your side does not usually go that route and the person I was giving that statement to was not.

Since I am an agnostic, I believe that theistic evolution is a reasonable possibility.

Do you accept common descent? If so, then you must believe that God has caused, and allowed natural selection to create, and maintain homosexuality.

Michael Behe says:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives." The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

It is important to note that Charles Darwin was a theist when he wrote "On the Origin of Species," not an atheist.

I can easily use another example. Today, if 1,000 newborn babies with Christian parents were raised by people of many different religions all over the world, it is probable that some of them who would have become Christians if they had been raised by their Christian parents would not become Christians. Surely chance and circumstance partly determine what people believe. If you had been transported at birth back in time to the time of Attila the Hun, and had been raised, and well-treated by him, your morals would surely have been much different than they are today.

The above is a repeat or so similar to a former post I will disregard it.

More accurately, what I said was a much better argument than the argument that I previously used, and you know that you cannot adequately refute it. Unless you reply to those arguments, it would be reasonable for me to claim that I won that argument.

There is no way that chance and circumstance do not partly determine what people believe.

It is a given that many children who were raised by Christian parents in the U.S., and became Christians, would not have become Christians if they had been raised from just after birth by people of other religions in many countries. It is a fact that parental influence is frequently a big factor regarding the worldview that young people choose. A landmark book that it titled "One Nation Under God," by Kosmin and Lachman, shows that geography, gender, family, and age are important factors that influence what people believe. The book is praised by Billy Graham, and by John Cardinal O'Connor. I suggest that you buy the book. Some reviewers have said that it is the best documented book of its kind in the world. The authors do not make a case for, or against religion. All that they do is report the results of lots of documented research. The book leaves no doubts whatsoever that chance and circumstance are important factors regarding what people believe. All that the authors basically said about choosing a worldview was that while they would not presume to claim why people choose their worldviews, apparently geography, gender, family, and age must at least have something to do with why people choose their worldviews. I have the book, so if you want to buy it, and read it, we can discuss it.

It is also a given that some skeptics who have died without accepting the God of the Bible would have accepted him if they had been transported at birth back in time to Jerusalem, in the time of Jesus, assuming for the sake of argument that Jesus performed many miracles.

As for the last sentence I did not say God has freewill but I believe he does. What would restrict his will?

Quite obviously, his nature. God cannot lie. He does not choose to tell the truth since choice implies that there is an option to lie. God does not have the option to lie. He must tell the truth. Therefore, he should not be complimented for telling the truth.

 

[Poeticus]

What language is your name in? I have given much evidence in every category I would think anyone would use to determine it. We are or were before 1960. Since that was my entire burden I just followed where the conversations went. If you are expecting any issue to be resolved finally, or for a thread to be consistently followed you are in the wrong place. I have seen no one from any side convert to another side in any debate. I will however concede points at times. However I have noticed a non-theist will never concede anything. It is like their house of cards will implode if one ray of light gets in. Forums are full of people very committed to their side.

Namaste,

It is in Sanskrit, written in the Devanāgari Script.

I didn't mean to be in the wrong place. I just wish the OP had a poll...so I would know what the general opinions are.

M.V.

 

[1robin]

Namaste,

It is in Sanskrit, written in the Devanāgari Script.

I didn't mean to be in the wrong place. I just wish the OP had a poll...so I would know what the general opinions are.

M.V.

You not wrong, I just meant based on those specific expectations you will be disappointed. I was under the impression very few scholars can read Sanskrit. Are you one? Or did I misunderstand? If you review the thread you will see the various views given, at least to begin with. Have a good weekend I am gone.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So...is it a Christian nation, or not?!?!

It's a Christian nation, and not. Depends on who's talking at the moment.