State Christianity

I strongly disagree on the Christian aspects of this post. State sponsored religions in a monarchy or even a republic are not unheard of, but why revert back to what got us to this point in the first place? Christianity when it has the backing of state authority has historically been violent and oppressive much like what we see in Islamic states today. While not all Christian sects are like that now, the ones that would be the most eager to gain monarchical power within the U.S. would be the Evangelical block, which has inherent religious supremacy attitudes. While the U.K. monarchy remains associated with Christianity, the government has been mostly secular for the past few centuries. The Founding Fathers did not pull deism out of their hats. It was the trend of Western Europe as these nations tried to move away from pointless religious wars and focus on colonization and diplomacy, and eventually industrialization.

Whenever a religion that claims to have "the one true god" and "the full truth" gain political influence the state becomes an authoritarian nightmare that threatens cultural and religious diversity. It poisons spirituality and emboldens the head of state to become the unquestioned divine ruler second only to their god. The propaganda would be so immense it would be the Abrahamic equivalent of modern day North Korea. The Ancient Egyptians did this with their pharaohs, which is why it was an unstable nation until secular rule under an Islamic majority was able to stabilize it within the last couple of centuries. Even now it is not without political challenges. Islam is their state sponsored religion but a secular government prevents full on Sharia law. Unfortunately, the country only recognizes the three major Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) today. Thus no other religion, even the native Kemetic faiths are legally recognized. If Christianity and Islam had been successful in their reign of Egypt over the past millennia we would not have any of the Ancient Egyptian monuments around in the present day. If Egypt ends up falling to Sharia law we could see the eradication of the pyramids and other ancient monuments/temples in Egypt at the detriment of their local economy. It would be just like what happened to Babylonian cities and art when the Taliban took hold of Afghanistan.

Also, what do you mean by "degeneracy"? If you mean sexual exploitation of minors, human sex trafficking, and overall abuse of oneself and/or others by means of violence, sexual exploitation, or substance abuse then sure I am for reducing "degeneracy." However, I find that most use "degeneracy" as a dog whistle to take away individual liberties and regulate human sexuality to state sponsored heterosexual monogamous marriages. It is one thing to encourage families, but it is abusive to tell the populace how exactly to construct their families or take away their choice in traditional or Bohemian lifestyles. It is not "degenerate" to live in an alternative manner to the traditional family or mainstream culture. Would I like to see uplifting art, music, fashion, and architecture? Of course, but that should be top down popular influence, not state mandated (with some exception to architecture and attire).

State sponsored religions can be successful if the religion in question is not restrictive. Polytheists faiths tend to have a more openness to cross-cultural/religious interactions that kept Greece, Rome, Persia, India, and China functional with less internal conflicts for centuries. The advent of monotheism was not oppressed by these governments. Rather, the monotheists behaved as violent terrorists attempting to carve out a niche within established empires and rise to power through violence and propaganda. Once on top Christianity and Islam used their monarchical powers to enforce their religions by the sword. China and parts of India were mostly unweathered by the rise of Abrahamic influence, but almost all ethnic European, North African, and Middle Eastern religions were wiped out before 1080 C.E.

Since Islam had wained throughout the reign of the Ottoman Empire, and the power of the Christian churches had peaked by the 17th Century it would be foolish to say it is solely on the religions conducting such travesties. It is more so the men who went mad with power these religions of the post-antiquity new world order establishment granted them. Though even today, granting Christian or Islamic men with absolute power through church/mosque ordained monarchical rule would be catastrophic because of the massive hegemonic power and influence these religions have on the global stage. Perhaps regional monarchs could be Christian or Muslim, but an Imperialist monarch should be a deist or function as a head of state chaplain. He or she could declare whatever religion they see fit, but respect all religions their people choose to follow.

I've been burned by religion before. Doesn't change my feeling that any potential Monarchy should be a spiritual head head for the nation, but that in turn hasn't broken my belief that America is best of with a wall between church and state.

For one thing America is too diverse, to have a state church would mean either adopting an existing denomination or creating a new one. Arguably, the latter is the better option but still messy. If we used our imaginations, we would realize just because we seek a monarchial solution to our issues real or imagined; that doesn't we need to fully endorse a religion in our government.

Any potential Monarchist government would need to represent a broad range of Americans with good policies on real and popular issues with tangible impacts; "policy" not "politics" will win in the end. Adopting a state religion will not further the end goal, it will only stiffen opposition from revolutionary groups.

I'd also advice we be careful what we tag "degenerate". Because history has shown that those thoughts also lead to tragedies.

As a christian, I would like to disagree. This is becuase throughout history, several nations would weaponize religon for example in Britain, France, and Spain all would fight because their government didn't align with a specific way of christianity. Secularism fixes this issue. With the government staying out of religious affairs, it does promote not only religious freedom, but also lets other nations slightly less lethal if they religiously critisize us. I respect your opinion and have seen god things about gvernment and religion being one in the same, but in the end, it prevents the weaponization of religion.

As a Deist, I completely disagree. The government should stay neutral in religious matters. Government has a proper role in society, and religion has its own role. To mix the two leads to the corruption of each. Besides, ask yourself: would you be willing to let another religion (eg, Taosim, or Islam) rule your nation? For if not, why, then, would you seek to force your own upon others? Society should, I think, return to a spiritual and religious society, so as to instill respect for our Creator and adherence to morality, but the government and its laws should remain hands-off in matters of faith.