America was founded as a Christian Nation

[LOki]

Wow, LOki - your command of bullshit rhetorical device terminology is just dazzling! It's almost as if you were...an EXPERT.One develops an expretise responding to the likes of you.


So, tell me - which bullshit rhetorical device are YOU using, when you try to re-frame the debate by pretending that the statements, "man is imperfect", and "man is in no way PERFECTIBLE" mean the same thing? I am unaware that I have done this. I'm sure you won't bother to demonstrate. As with all your other assertions and accusations, you'l just rest on your unsubstantiated opinion.


You are truly a font of information; I had no idea debate could be boiled down to, "Does, too!" What am I beating my brains out for??!!"Does too!" is an appropriate response to the repeated use of the unsubstantiaed "Does not!" coming from you.


Because you understand nothing of Christianity, you can't know that I don't NEED to offer substantiation or refutation; you provide them with your every keystroke. You're a better energy-saver than solar panels!I predict you'll never offer substantiated rebuttal because you have none--you'll instead just hide behind this unsubstantiated accusation, comfortable with your intellectual cowardice.

[musicman]

One develops an expretise responding to the likes of you.

"Does too!" is an appropriate response to the repeated use of the unsubstantiaed "Does not!" coming from you.

I predict you'll never offer substantiated rebuttal because you have none--you'll instead just hide behind this unsubstantiated accusation, comfortable with your intellectual cowardice.

You struggle like a man on the edge of a cliff against the assertion that this nation was founded on Christian principle - yet demonstrate with every keystroke that you understand NOTHING of Christianity, save for your unrelenting hostility toward it. I honestly don't know what you want from me.


I am unaware that I have done this. I'm sure you won't bother to demonstrate. As with all your other assertions and accusations, you'l just rest on your unsubstantiated opinion.

Read through the thread. Maybe you'd like me to run your mouse for you?

[glockmail]

This LOki guy turns into a real creep when he's proven wrong- which has been often lately. :pee:

[LOki]

You struggle like a man on the edge of a cliff against the assertion that this nation was founded on Christian principle - yet demonstrate with every keystroke that you understand NOTHING of Christianity, save for your unrelenting hostility toward it. I honestly don't know what you want from me.



Read through the thread. Maybe you'd like me to run your mouse for you?Predictions confirmed. woot.


This LOki guy turns into a real creep when he's proven wrong- which has been often lately. :pee:You and musicman suffer from the delusional flavor of retardation--add Doniston and Rahul, and you guys are the retarded Four Musketeers: "All for dumb, and dumb for all!"

[glockmail]

Predictions confirmed. woot.

You and musicman suffer from the delusional flavor of retardation--add Doniston and Rahul, and you guys are the retarded Four Musketeers: "All for dumb, and dumb for all!"

Good come-back. "You're a retard! And everyone else who agrees with you!"

At least you are showning your true intellect now instead of googling for answers. :pee:

[musicman]

Predictions confirmed. woot.

Ah, well - that'll teach me. I was about to give you credit for having the intelligence and integrity to realize that,

A) it is the difference between the statements, "Man is imperfect" and "Man is in no way perfectible" upon which this debate turns,

B) whether you'd substituted the former for the latter inadvertently or with dishonest intent, the game is now up, and,

C) given your woeful ignorance on the subject of Christianity, you've got as much business debating Christian principle as Stevie Wonder has racing in the Indy 500.

I'm glad we caught this in time.

[LOki]

Good come-back. "You're a retard! And everyone else who agrees with you!" Typical of you, and your intellectually dishonest tactics--you misrepresent to deflect from the actual assertion, and the basis for making it. Why do you persist with this? Is it your experince that your dishonest bullshit is validated by your persistent adherence to it?

You have no game glockmail. If you did, you'd not resort to false accusation, misrepresentation, and character assassination to avoid having your unsubstantiated opinions from being exposed for the factless bullshit they are.

Since I find myself in the prediction business lately, I'll make this one: You're going dismiss this post out of cowadice using your pissing monkey emoticon, or you're going to attempt to paint me as a hypocrit because I've been calling you a retard. You're going to do this with the full knowledge that you've earned it by embracing intellectual dishonesty and logical fallacy, and by persistently failing to substantiate an argument with fact or valid logic. You're going to do this without providing any proof, glockmail, because if you try, you'll only succeed in providing proof that you've engineered all this yourself, and you'll prove my point.


At least you are showning your true intellect now instead of googling for answers. :pee:I can only hope you're referring to Mr. P's logic problem; because if you are, I'd invite you to review it and demonstrate exactly what your problem with my answer was--besides having it right. It goes without saying that you always have a problem when I am right--particularly when being right is contradictory to your bullshit, unsupported opinions you present as fact.


Ah, well - that'll teach me. I was about to give you credit for having the intelligence and integrity to realize that,

A) it is the difference between the statements, "Man is imperfect" and "Man is in no way perfectible" upon which this debate turns,...I can parse this difference--you have been unable to demonstrate exactly how this debate "turns" on it. I suspect that you have no idea, and are grasping for some new criteria upon which you can move the goal posts (again) to avoid being punked (again).


B) whether you'd substituted the former for the latter inadvertently or with dishonest intent, the game is now up, and,...And now you need to imply some kind of "dishonest intent" so you can feign pointless exasperation in conveying your point, so then you can avoid actually attemting to defend your point with substance other than your unsupported opinion. I predict you'll contnue with this rather than offer anything more than deflective accusations and your unsubstantiated opinion.


C) given your woeful ignorance on the subject of Christianity, you've got as much business debating Christian principle as Stevie Wonder has racing in the Indy 500.And you continue on and on with this unsubstantiated accusation. You offer no counter what-so-ever. None. You have had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate how wrong I am, and failing to do so, and instead engaging in this "you don't know anything" bullshit, you are confiming my suspicion that you actually have no valid rebuttal. I predict you'll continue to repeat this bullshit accustaion rather than post a substantial rebuttal because you simply have none.

[glockmail]

..... You're going dismiss this post out of cowadice using your pissing monkey emoticon, or you're going to attempt to paint me as a hypocrit because I've been calling you a retard. ......

Or I'm going to tell it like I sees it, that you are a bore. http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/bored.gif

Looks like I hit a raw nerve though. That means that I was dead-on with my assessment of you.
:laugh2:

[LOki]

Or I'm going to tell it like I sees it, that you are a bore. http://smiley.onegreatguy.net/bored.gifIt pleases me that you dismiss with a different emoticon than the pissing monkey. My prediction holds in substance, if not the particulars.


Looks like I hit a raw nerve though.It only looks that way to you.


That means that I was dead-on with my assessment of you.
:laugh2:Only in your mind--the only place where your unsubstantiated opinion is meaningful--is this true. :bye1:

[glockmail]

It pleases me that you dismiss with a different emoticon than the pissing monkey. My prediction holds in substance, if not the particulars.

It only looks that way to you.

Only in your mind--the only place where your unsubstantiated opinion is meaningful--is this true. :bye1:

I predict you'll respond to this with yet another bore-post. :pee:

[musicman]

I can parse this difference--you have been unable to demonstrate exactly how this debate "turns" on it. I suspect that you have no idea, and are grasping for some new criteria upon which you can move the goal posts (again) to avoid being punked (again).

And now you need to imply some kind of "dishonest intent" so you can feign pointless exasperation in conveying your point, so then you can avoid actually attemting to defend your point with substance other than your unsupported opinion. I predict you'll contnue with this rather than offer anything more than deflective accusations and your unsubstantiated opinion.

There's no "opinion" to it. You've been either careless or dishonest. Which is it?


And you continue on and on with this unsubstantiated accusation. You offer no counter what-so-ever. None. You have had plenty of opportunity to demonstrate how wrong I am, and failing to do so, and instead engaging in this "you don't know anything" bullshit, you are confiming my suspicion that you actually have no valid rebuttal. I predict you'll continue to repeat this bullshit accustaion rather than post a substantial rebuttal because you simply have none.

I don't need to substantiate that you are woefully ignorant of Christianity - I've got YOU. Go ahead - say something "Christian"; I haven't had a good laugh all day.

[LOki]

There's no "opinion" to it. You've been either careless or dishonest. Which is it?



I don't need to substantiate that you are woefully ignorant of Christianity - I've got YOU. Go ahead - say something "Christian"; I haven't had a good laugh all day.Predictions confirmed again. woot.

[glockmail]

Predictions confirmed again. woot. So was mine.

[musicman]

Predictions confirmed again. woot.

I hate to break this to you, Nostradamus, but your self-satisfied clucking here would be akin to Ted Bundy saying, "The evidence against me in the murder of dozens of women is overwhelming. I predict, therefore, that I will be prosecuted. Aha - I AM being prosecuted! See???!!! I was RIGHT!!! WOO-HOO! Who's da man, baby - who's da man??!! Woot woot!"

So...enjoy, I guess...

[glockmail]

I hate to break this to you, Nostradamus, but your self-satisfied clucking here would be akin to Ted Bundy saying, "The evidence against me in the murder of dozens of women is overwhelming. I predict, therefore, that I will be prosecuted. Aha - I AM being prosecuted! See???!!! I was RIGHT!!! WOO-HOO! Who's da man, baby - who's da man??!! Woot woot!"

So...enjoy, I guess...

Pitiful, ain't he? :lol:

[LOki]

I hate to break this to you, Nostradamus, but your self-satisfied clucking here would be akin to Ted Bundy saying, "The evidence against me in the murder of dozens of women is overwhelming. I predict, therefore, that I will be prosecuted. Aha - I AM being prosecuted! See???!!! I was RIGHT!!! WOO-HOO! Who's da man, baby - who's da man??!! Woot woot!"

So...enjoy, I guess...
Pitiful, ain't he? :lol:You two morons should get a room.

[Psychoblues]

They would just suck each other to death.



You two morons should get a room.

Good thought, LOki!!!!!!!!!!!

[musicman]

So, this is how losers behave when they run out of ideas. Thanks, guys - most instructive!

[glockmail]

You two morons should get a room.
Prediction confirmed. woot.

[Psychoblues]

What prediction?



Prediction confirmed. woot.

You got a bee in your ass? how about a "buzzzzzzzzz"

[glockmail]

What prediction?




You got a bee in your ass? how about a "buzzzzzzzzz" Post 260.

[Pale Rider]

So, this is how losers behave when they run out of ideas. Thanks, guys - most instructive!

It was over before it began mm. America WAS founded on Christian beliefs, and there's no amount of rhetoric or diatribe that can touch that fact.

[Psychoblues]

America was founded on humanistic beliefs, pr, and it just so happens Christian beliefs coincide with some of them.




It was over before it began mm. America WAS founded on Christian beliefs, and there's no amount of rhetoric or diatribe that can touch that fact.

Many of our founding Fathers would never agree to any Church or otherwise theocratic approach to the American democracy as they envisioned. The failure through many years of debate in this country and particularly on this board and other right wing boards to credibly dispel that fact is illuminating.

Don't you think?

[Pale Rider]

America was founded on humanistic beliefs, pr, and it just so happens Christian beliefs coincide with some of them.





Many of our founding Fathers would never agree to any Church or otherwise theocratic approach to the American democracy as they envisioned. The failure through many years of debate in this country and particularly on this board and other right wing boards to credibly dispel that fact is illuminating.

Don't you think?

I don't think, I know. America was founded on Christian beliefs, period. Spin all you want, it's just piss in the wind.

[Psychoblues]

As you have demonstrated hundreds and possibly thousands of times, pr. you don't know shit from shinola.

Have another beer, give your scooter a good run and kiss my ass.

[musicman]

America was founded on humanistic beliefs, pr, and it just so happens Christian beliefs coincide with some of them.

Is the fall of man a humanistic belief?


Many of our founding Fathers would never agree to any Church or otherwise theocratic approach to the American democracy as they envisioned.

You mean, "representative republic".


The failure through many years of debate in this country and particularly on this board and other right wing boards to credibly dispel that fact is illuminating.

Don't you think?

On the contrary, it is this very fact upon which I base my argument; why would I want to dispel it? A theocracy would be a violation of Christian principle.

[Pale Rider]

As you have demonstrated hundreds and possibly thousands of times, pr. you don't know shit from shinola.

Have another beer, give your scooter a good run and kiss my ass.

I'm not feeling like I want to buy into your dumbass game of insults today slack jaw. I'm a better man than you are, and now I will demonstrate that by ignoring your ignorance.

[Psychoblues]

Then, as you propose and beg the question, why do so many Christians fail their predominant spiritual inclinations and accept the warmongering inclinations of the men they choose as their leaders?




Is the fall of man a humanistic belief?



You mean, "representative republic".



On the contrary, it is this very fact upon which I base my argument; why would I want to dispel it? A theocracy would be a violation of Christian principle.

Please be as comprehensive as you would like but I maintain that most of our founding fathers would have rather not been so religiously compelled.

[musicman]

Then, as you propose and beg the question, why do so many Christians fail their predominant spiritual inclinations and accept the warmongering inclinations of the men they choose as their leaders?

Ummm...because they're human beings, and - as such - doomed to imperfection - which is one of the fundamental truths of Christian principle?

And...that this inescapable non-perfectibility holds true for those whose leaders direct their warmongering inclinations against all that is good and decent about their own home country?


Please be as comprehensive as you would like but I maintain that most of our founding fathers would have rather not been so religiously compelled.

On a good day, one can be comprehensive and succinct in the same motion. This is especially true when the subject matter involves simple common sense.

Our founding fathers held freedom of worship so dear that they devised a system of government which is unique in all of history: central government is instructed, in the clearest possible terms, to butt out of the matter of religion ENTIRELY. Not instructed to "be secular". Not instructed to "be humanist". Instructed to BUTT OUT. Religion is the people's business.

[Psychoblues]

You are such an idiot.



Ummm...because they're human beings, and - as such - doomed to imperfection - which is one of the fundamental truths of Christian principle?

And...that this inescapable non-perfectibility holds true for those whose leaders direct their warmongering inclinations against all that is good and decent about their own home country?



On a good day, one can be comprehensive and succinct in the same motion. This is especially true when the subject matter involves simple common sense.

Our founding fathers held freedom of worship so dear that they devised a system of government which is unique in all of history: central government is instructed, in the clearest possible terms, to butt out of the matter of religion ENTIRELY. Not instructed to "be secular". Not instructed to "be humanist". Instructed to BUTT OUT. Religion is the people's business.


Just exactly what is your obsession with "not"? Whose business?

[musicman]

You are such an idiot.





Just exactly what is your obsession with "not"? Whose business?

Ah - the old "Psychoblues has nothing of substance to offer by way of argument, so he deflects the debate by morphing into a drooling retard" gambit. I've seen it many times. Don't you have anything new?

[LOki]

I don't think, I know. America was founded on Christian beliefs, period. Be the first one in this thread to prove it.


Spin all you want, it's just piss in the wind."America was founded on Christian beliefs, period. " = Spin.

[Psychoblues]

I asked you a question. Do you not have any other answer than to attack me?




Ah - the old "Psychoblues has nothing of substance to offer by way of argument, so he deflects the debate by morphing into a drooling retard" gambit. I've seen it many times. Don't you have anything new?

You are the shithead I interpreted many months ago.

[musicman]

I asked you a question. Do you not have any other answer than to attack me?

Don't play the martyr with me. Remember, you started your question with:


You are such an idiot.

You've got nothing, Psychoblues. You can't last for ten posts in a coherent debate; when flummoxed, you try to play it cute and stupid; when that doesn't work, you go straight to:


You are the shithead I interpreted many months ago.

I'm engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

[Psychoblues]

Do you expect your attempts at cuteness to sustain your delusions of correctness?




Don't play the martyr with me. Remember, you started your question with:



You've got nothing, Psychoblues. You can't last for ten posts in a coherent debate; when flummoxed, you try to play it cute and stupid; when that doesn't work, you go straight to:





I'm engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

And you choose to pick on that unarmed opponent? What a shithead you really are, then. See above.

[musicman]

Do you expect your attempts at cuteness to sustain your delusions of correctness?





And you choose to pick on that unarmed opponent? What a shithead you really are, then. See above.

There you have it, gentle reader: I define Psychoblues; he confirms it. Enjoy.

[Psychoblues]

Indeed.



There you have it, gentle reader: I define Psychoblues; he confirms it. Enjoy.

Enjoy.

[glockmail]

Be the first one in this thread to prove it.

"America was founded on Christian beliefs, period. " = Spin. Lookie who's back after his beating and subsequent temper tantrum last week. :lol:

[LOki]

Lookie who's back after his beating and subsequent temper tantrum last week. :lol:WTF are you talking about?

Repeating your bullshit delusions will not make them less bullshit, or more real. Seek professional help.

[glockmail]

WTF are you talking about?

Repeating your bullshit delusions will not make them less bullshit, or more real. Seek professional help.
Don't worry, it's normal for an unbalanced person like yourself to forget things.

[LOki]

Don't worry, it's normal for an unbalanced person like yourself to forget things.I'm certainly not going to worry over the misleading insinuations, implications, and suggestions that are made by an intellectually dishonest douche like yourself.

[Hagbard Celine]

Wait, do you guys mean that Christianity was the majority religion at the time of the founding or do you mean that the founders meant for the US to be Christian? The former is true, the latter is not.

[Pale Rider]

Be the first one in this thread to prove it.

I already have. You've ignored it. Your fault, not mine.

[Pale Rider]

Wait, do you guys mean that Christianity was the majority religion at the time of the founding or do you mean that the founders meant for the US to be Christian? The former is true, the latter is not.

No. What has been proven is that Christianity "influenced" the founding fathers. That's a fact. To spend your time trying to spin otherwise just exposes those who try as Christian haters and secularists who would love to rewrite history in their godless fashion.

[glockmail]

Wait, do you guys mean that Christianity was the majority religion at the time of the founding or do you mean that the founders meant for the US to be Christian? The former is true, the latter is not.
Sources of Proof to establish the Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States:


In the first chapter alone, Morris presents nine MAJOR proofs for Christian foundational support in asserting the Christian roots of this nation.


The Hand of God in the Settlement of the American Continent…


Christian Colonization of the New England Colonies…


Christian Colonization of Pennsylvania—New York—New Jersey—Delaware…


Statesmen of the Revolution—Their Views of Christianity and its Relations to Civil Society and Government…


Christian Systems of Education in the New England Colonies Christian Colonization of Virginia—Maryland—South Carolina—North Carolina—Georgia…


Christian Legislation of the Continental Congress…


State Constitutions during the Revolution—Christian Doctrines incorporated in them as Fundamental Law…


The Christian principles embedded in the Federal Constitution…


The Constitution consciously developed as a Christian Instrument of government…


Christian Scenes in the First Congress under the Constitution…


The Christian Acts and Scenes of the Army of the Revolution…


Christian Ministers of the Revolution …


Christian Women of the Revolution …


Christian Churches of the Revolution—Congregational Churches …


Christian Churches of the Revolution—The Baptist Churches—Methodist Episcopal Church …


Christian Churches of the Revolution—The Reformed Dutch Church and other Churches—German Lutheran Church…


Christian Character of George Washington and many other statesmen…


Fast and Thanksgiving Days appointed by the States and the Federal Government…


Christian Scenes in the Capitol of the Republic…


Christian biographies, sermons and prayers during the founding of the nation…


Events related to the War for Independence…


Even the statements and actions of enemies of the Republic and their responses to the events of Providence…


Christianity of America Courts, and Christian Character of Eminent American Judges …


The Christian Element in the Civil War of the United States…



It should be an interesting book. That is, after all, what the OP is about.

[LOki]

I already have. You've ignored it. Your fault, not mine.Prove with evidence rather than unsubstantiated opinion.

[glockmail]

Prove with evidence rather than unsubstantiated opinion.
In the DOI who is the Creator if not the Judeo-Christian God?

[Spyder Jerusalem]

The Creator, A general term meaning "Nature's God" as Jefferson and Franklin would put it, or whatever the fuck a silly as theist would want to call "creator".
That could mean Allah, or Vishnu, or fuckin Zeus for that matter.

It was left purposefully vague so that NO particular belief, faith, or silly ass myth would be given special treatmen, pre-eminence, or favoritism.

This country was NOT founded as a christer Nation, but was perhaps founded by some christers!

Those are two VERY differnet things, and point of fact is that those Founders went to great pains to exclude any particular religion, ESPECIALLY christerism, from ever having any special precednce in common law or government.

When stupid chrtister fucks pull this "christian nation" crap, it just about makes me wanna puke blood.

[musicman]

The Creator, A general term meaning "Nature's God" as Jefferson and Franklin would put it, or whatever the fuck a silly as theist would want to call "creator".
That could mean Allah, or Vishnu, or fuckin Zeus for that matter.

It was left purposefully vague so that NO particular belief, faith, or silly ass myth would be given special treatmen, pre-eminence, or favoritism.

Oh, goody - I can see what a calm, reasoned, and objective post this is going to be.


This country was NOT founded as a christer Nation, but was perhaps founded by some christers!

Those are two VERY differnet things, and point of fact is that those Founders went to great pains to exclude any particular religion, ESPECIALLY christerism, from ever having any special precednce in common law or government.

No - you've got it ass-backwards. The founders went to great pains to exclude government from ever having any involvement whatsoever in religion.


When stupid chrtister fucks pull this "christian nation" crap, it just about makes me wanna puke blood.

Then, please do - and God speed you.

[LOki]

In the DOI who is the Creator if not the Judeo-Christian God?The DOI is not the constitution. The Constitution is the document that defines the principles upon which this nation is founded. But I stll hear you glockmail; the DOI offers insight in to how those principles are derived--the DOI cites "...Laws of Nature and of Nature's God..." which is suggests rational principles, and is strongly ambiguous regarding ecclesiastically dederived principles (including Christianity) in favor of "Natural[ly]" derived principles. "Natures God" can be Jesus, but if this Nation was actually founded on Christian principles "Nature's God" MUST unambiguously, and constitutionally, be Jesus Christ--you have to demonstrate that they meant to say "Jesus" when they said "Nature's God".<blockquote><b>John Adams:</b>
<i>"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."</i></blockquote>You, musicman, and Pale Rider have not only failed to demonstrate that the Founders meant to say "Jesus" when they said "Nature's God", but also, so fully immersed in your lack of intellectual integrity, you refuse to aknowledge that you have brought only your conviction, but no evidence, to establish that they meant Jesus when they said "Nature's God"; or that any of the principles that this nation is founded upon are neccessarily and uniquely Christian. When presented with evidence, you (and I mean you in particular Glockmail) deny the validity of that evidence not with counter-argument and evidence, but rather argumentative fallacy, and character assasination.<blockquote><b>John Adams:</b><i>
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."</i></blockquote><blockquote><b>John Adams:</b><i>
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence."</i></blockquote>

[glockmail]

The DOI is not the constitution. ... But is it not a founding document? Written to garner support among the Christain People?

With regards to the Constitution, maybe you can tell us who was being referenced by "Blessings of Liberty". Who gave the Blessing?

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Liberty, fucktard.

You said it yourself.

Sheesh.

[OCA]

Liberty, fucktard.

You said it yourself.

Sheesh.

Hey Spidey, you enjoying yourself today? I predict about two days before a flaming idiot like you gets tossed...............rookie.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

...............rookie.

If only you knew.......sandwich boy.

[LOki]

But is it not a founding document? Written to garner support among the Christain People?Did I argue that the DOI was not a founding document? Let's look at the full quote and judge.<blockquote><b>LOki:</b>
<i>"The DOI is not the constitution. The Constitution is the document that defines the principles upon which this nation is founded. But I stll hear you glockmail; <b>the DOI offers insight in to how those principles are derived--the DOI cites "...Laws of Nature and of Nature's God..." which is suggests rational principles, and is strongly ambiguous regarding ecclesiastically dederived principles (including Christianity) in favor of "Natural[ly]" derived principles.</b> "Natures God" can be Jesus, but if this Nation was actually founded on Christian principles "Nature's God" MUST unambiguously, and constitutionally, be Jesus Christ--you have to demonstrate that they meant to say "Jesus" when they said "Nature's God".</i></blockquote>It appears that I did not. And it also appears that you would still prefer to suggest I am making arguments that I didn't, in order to avoid admitting that you cannot bring evidence to support your assertion.


With regards to the Constitution, maybe you can tell us who was being referenced by "Blessings of Liberty". Who gave the Blessing?<blockquote><b>Preamble to the United States Constitution:</b>
<i>"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."</i></blockquote>It's pretty clear that "We the people of the United States" ordained and established this Constitution, for the purpose (amongst others cited) of securing the blessings that are derived from liberty.

Mr. Jerusalem appears to be correct on that account--amongst others.

[glockmail]

Did I argue that the DOI was not a founding document? Let's look at the full quote and judge…..

<blockquote><b>Preamble to the United States Constitution:</b>
<i>"We the people[sic] of the United States, in order[sic] to form a more perfect union [sic], establish justice[sic], insure domestic tranquility[sic], provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare[sic], and secure the blessings[sic] of liberty[sic] to ourselves and our posterity[sic], do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."</i></blockquote>…..

So you agree that the DOI is a founding document, and obviously this document refers to God. Since the Founders were Christian they would obviously have been referring to the Christian God. This God is also referred to as Nature’s God, to differentiate Him from the false god of the British Crown. A real god, a god that controls nature, would not put a feeble king in charge of the colonist’s destiny, or allow him to make unjust laws. The reference to God united the Christians in the colonies against the false god and the Crown.

Furthermore, you misquoted the preamble to the Constitution by improper capitalization. The word “Blessings” is capitalized to highlight its importance. So I ask you again, who helped them secure these blessings?

[LOki]

So you agree that the DOI is a founding document,...Again, I have not argued otherwise.


...and obviously this document refers to God.This document refers to a God--yes; "Nature's God" if you wish to get particular.


Since the Founders were Christian...Correction: ...some of the Founders were certainly Christian, you have yet to demonstrate they all were.


...they would obviously have been referring to the Christian God.You have yet to prove this.


This God is also referred to as Nature’s God, to differentiate Him from the false god of the British Crown.But apparently not Jesus; who is actually, and unambiguously the Christian God


A real god, a god that controls nature, would not put a feeble king in charge of the colonist’s destiny, or allow him to make unjust laws.Says you, without factual support.


The reference to God united the Christians in the colonies against the false god and the Crown.This reference to "Nature's God" does not neccessarily appeal to only Christians, but other who believe in a Supreme Deity as well. Jews, for instance; and Muslims. Add to that list any number of pagan deities, as well as nature worshipers, and naturalists who find it convenient to describe nature in anthropormorphic terminology.


Furthermore, you misquoted the preamble to the Constitution by improper capitalization.I did not; my source did. I see that you are correct, however, having checked the National Archives site. Nice catch.


The word “Blessings” is capitalized to highlight its importance.Fine.


So I ask you again, who helped them secure these blessings?The "Blessings" are still derived from Liberty--no "who" is specified or necessary.

In fact, neither the DOI or the Constitution make a single reference to Jesus, or Christ. Not even one. A rather glaring ommision for country allegedly founded on Christianity.<blockquote><b>John Adams and the unanimous 5th Senate:</b><i>
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."</i></blockquote><blockquote><b>John Adams:</b><i>
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence."</i></blockquote>

[Gunny]

Be the first one in this thread to prove it.

"America was founded on Christian beliefs, period. " = Spin.

Are our Rights under the Constitution not considered, in writing, to be unalienable and endowed by our Creator?

[Missileman]

Are our Rights under the Constitution not considered, in writing, to be unalienable and endowed by our Creator?

I believe that was the DoI.

[Gunny]

I believe that was the DoI.

It amounts to the same thing within the context of this thread though, right? That "the Creator" is officially identified in US government documents.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

James Madison, principal author of the constitution:

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State." (1819).


"In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words "Jesus Christ" after the words "our lord" in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst." (James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance)


"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall make no law respecting a religious establishment'" (James Madison, Veto, 1811)

The founders did NOT want christerism to have either any special privilege, or power in the government.
Christerism was purposefully excluded from any particulars in the founding of America.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

It amounts to the same thing within the context of this thread though, right? That "the Creator" is officially identified in US government documents.


That "creator" could just as easily be Shiva, Ahura-Mazda, or some giant man-making machine somewhere.
There is no specification, therefore no particular mythology is represented.

[Pale Rider]

The founders did NOT want christerism to have either any special privilege, or power in the government.
Christerism was purposefully excluded from any particulars in the founding of America.

No... they didn't. But the influence of Christianity is evident in all they did and wrote, as documented clearly as fact time and again earlier in this thread. Go back and read, so as to avoid looking like a repeating idiot.

[Pale Rider]

That "creator" could just as easily be Shiva, Ahura-Mazda, or some giant man-making machine somewhere.
There is no specification, therefore no particular mythology is represented.

No... it couldn't. That's just asinine.

[Gunny]

That "creator" could just as easily be Shiva, Ahura-Mazda, or some giant man-making machine somewhere.
There is no specification, therefore no particular mythology is represented.

Literally there is not. However, I will offer that the US at the time was scarcely 100 or so years removed from the Salem Witch Trials. At the time, most Americans were Christian religious refugees from Europe And while Europe was predominantly Catholic, and IIRC, England Anglican, both are still Christian religions.

This would lead one to believe that within the context of the FF's world, "the Creator" is the Christian "God."

In any event, we could rule out which religion was not representative of even a minority of Americans.

[LOki]

That "the Creator" is officially identified in US government documents.No.

[Gunny]

No.


When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

[Spyder Jerusalem]

In any event, we could rule out which religion was not representative of even a minority of Americans.

Not at all.
The non-specific nature of the documents is whats important, not the personal beliefs of those who wrote them.
Regardless whether the founders were variations of the christer faith, the fact is that they realized that other people of other religions would be showin' up in America soon.
In order to protect those people from persecution, in exactly the same way that they were persecuted, they purposefully left all religious reference3s, and their concurrent religious persuasions, vague.

The purposeful exclusion of any specific "faith" is whats really important, and what the Founders worked hhard to maintain, even in those times.

Christer leaders were constantly tryin' to work their will on the Founders in order to get special treatment for their particular brand, and those Founders that they pushed pushed back even harder.

They realized that personal faith is PERSONAL, and that our nation could not stand by institutionalizing, generalizing, or enforcing on the masses what should be an individual, personal, choice.

No matter what the christers say, America has NEVER been a "christian" nation.
A nation of faithful, perhaps, but not a nation of faith.

[Missileman]

It amounts to the same thing within the context of this thread though, right? That "the Creator" is officially identified in US government documents.

The premise of the thread is that the USA was founded on Christian principles. I suppose there are those who think that, if true, it would mean that Christianity should be given some kind of preferential status among all of the religions practiced here. I find it very telling that there is no mention of Christ by name in any of the documents. Two-fifty years ago, I would think that atheists were probably a lot rarer than today. The mention of "the" god or "the" creator, would probably be seen by most as a reference to "their" god or creator.

What I haven't seen yet presented is a single principle adopted by the founders that is uniquely, or for that matter originally, Christian. Freedom of religion is the cornerstone of our government. You only have to look at the colonial (state) religions to see that "worship as you please" is as far away from a Christian ideal as you can get.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

No... it couldn't. That's just asinine.

Yes, it could.

Yer just bein' intellectually dishonest.

Nothin' new for you, I'm sure.

[Pale Rider]

No.

Yes, it is.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[Pale Rider]

Yes, it could.

Yer just bein' intellectually dishonest.

Nothin' new for you, I'm sure.

(dup post - delete.)

[Pale Rider]

Yes, it could.

Yer just bein' intellectually dishonest.

Nothin' new for you, I'm sure.

That, coming from mister 189 posts and -185 rep... :laugh:

The only "dishonest" argument here is the one trying to rewrite history... "yours and loki's."

[Gunny]

Not at all.
The non-specific nature of the documents is whats important, not the personal beliefs of those who wrote them.
Regardless whether the founders were variations of the christer faith, the fact is that they realized that other people of other religions would be showin' up in America soon.
In order to protect those people from persecution, in exactly the same way that they were persecuted, they purposefully left all religious reference3s, and their concurrent religious persuasions, vague.

The purposeful exclusion of any specific "faith" is whats really important, and what the Founders worked hhard to maintain, even in those times.

Christer leaders were constantly tryin' to work their will on the Founders in order to get special treatment for their particular brand, and those Founders that they pushed pushed back even harder.

They realized that personal faith is PERSONAL, and that our nation could not stand by institutionalizing, generalizing, or enforcing on the masses what should be an individual, personal, choice.

No matter what the christers say, America has NEVER been a "christian" nation.
A nation of faithful, perhaps, but not a nation of faith.

I agree the wording is nonspecific, and for the purpose of inclusion. I do not think however you can remove the religious beliefs of the founders.

I also misread the thread title. I don't think the US was founded as a Christian nation. It was founded as a nation free from religious persecution since most Americans of the day were religious refugees.

I do however believe it was founded by Christians and it's laws and morals represented the Christian religion.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

History is what it is.

You've done nothing to dispell our arguments, just whined.

And yer crack about post count and rep points are meaningless.

I have it on good authority that anyone who puts any stock in either one is a fool.
Maybe that's why they mean so much to you?

[Pale Rider]

I don't think the US was founded as a Christian nation.


I do however believe it was founded by Christians and it's laws and morals represented the Christian religion.

Don't quite understand that.

Was founded by Christians, and represented the Christian religon, but it wasn't for the most part a Christian nation? - - :dunno:

[Pale Rider]

History is what it is.

You've done nothing to dispell our arguments, just whined.

Like I said, your arguements have been dispelled pages ago. Go back and read it muttonhead.

[Gunny]

The premise of the thread is that the USA was founded on Christian principles. I suppose there are those who think that, if true, it would mean that Christianity should be given some kind of preferential status among all of the religions practiced here. I find it very telling that there is no mention of Christ by name in any of the documents. Two-fifty years ago, I would think that atheists were probably a lot rarer than today. The mention of "the" god or "the" creator, would probably be seen by most as a reference to "their" god or creator.

What I haven't seen yet presented is a single principle adopted by the founders that is uniquely, or for that matter originally, Christian. Freedom of religion is the cornerstone of our government. You only have to look at the colonial (state) religions to see that "worship as you please" is as far away from a Christian ideal as you can get.

Actually, you made the same mistake I did, unless the title is misleading. It is taht the US was founded as a Christian Nation; which, I do not agree with, as explained in my post preceeding this one.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

I do however believe it was founded by Christians and it's laws and morals represented the Christian religion.

Granted.

But only because that's all the Founders knew.

Not because of any special quality of christerism, but because of the nature of the founders themselves.

All of them recognized the primary importance of leavin' religion at the doorstep when entering the houses of Power in this nation, and strove to make sure that nothin' like the British Church/State mistake would ever come about here in America.

When ten different christer flavors can't agree on the same dogma for basically the same religion, something needs to be done to exclude such meaningless conflicts from our government.
And, even then, there were new immigrants of non-christer religions showing up, too.

Musselmen, Mohamedans, Hugenots, Moors, and various and sundry variations on christerism that even the regular christers wouldn't acknowledge.

Ever hear of the Oneida colony?
The first American experiment in free love, open marriage, and communism.

How wouldja like it if their religion was The American Religion?

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Like I said, your arguements have been dispelled pages ago. Go back and read it muttonhead.

Not likely.

Claiming victory and achieving victory are two very different things.

I guess you haven't won enough times to know the difference.

[Gunny]

Don't quite understand that... :dunno:

Was founded by Christians, and represented the Christian religon, but it wasn't for the most part a Christian nation?

The nation was founded by people who were either religous refugees, or a generation or two removed from them. They did not want to recreate the very thing they escaped from ... a nation ruled by a Church, and their purposefully nonspecific wording where religion is concerned attests to that.

Yes it wa a Nation of Christians. It was not however created to be a Christian Nation to the exlusion and/or discrimination against other religions.

[Gunny]

Granted.

But only because that's all the Founders knew.

Not because of any special quality of christerism, but because of the nature of the founders themselves.

All of them recognized the primary importance of leavin' religion at the doorstep when entering the houses of Power in this nation, and strove to make sure that nothin' like the British Church/State mistake would ever come about here in America.
When ten different christer flavors can't agree on the same dogma for basically the same religion, something needs to be done to exclude such meaningless conflicts from our government.
And, even then, there were new immigrants of non-christer religions showing up, too.

Musselmen, Mohamedans, Hugenots, Moors, and various and sundry variations on christerism that even the regular christers wouldn't acknowledge.

Ever hear of the Oneida colony?
The first American experiment in free love, open marriage, and communism.

How wouldja like it if their religion was The American Religion?

I essentially agree; especially with the bolded portion.

[Pale Rider]

Not likely.

Claiming victory and achieving victory are two very different things.

I guess you haven't won enough times to know the difference.

You're coming here after the battle and saying that?

We've already won junior. This is nothing but a minor aftermath skurmish.

[Pale Rider]

The nation was founded by people who were either religous refugees, or a generation or two removed from them. They did not want to recreate the very thing they escaped from ... a nation ruled by a Church, and their purposefully nonspecific wording where religion is concerned attests to that.

Yes it wa a Nation of Christians. It was not however created to be a Christian Nation to the exlusion and/or discrimination against other religions.

I can agree with that. And with saying that, one can deduce that this was a nation "of" Christians, therefore, "was" a Christian nation.

I know they didn't want a church running this new country, and that's something I've never contended. All along I've been saying essentially the same thing you have.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

You're coming here after the battle and saying that?

Just keepin yer idiot ass up ta speed.

Someone needed ta tell ya the score, deluded as ya are...

Glad I could help.

I always try to give the retarded amongst us a little leg up.....

[Pale Rider]

Just keepin yer idiot ass up ta speed.

Someone needed ta tell ya the score, deluded as ya are...

Glad I could help.

I always try to give the retarded amongst us a little leg up.....

Moron. Please don't smoke that shit before you come on the board again. You lost touch with reality.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Yer ad hominems just make you look like an even bigger loser, dipshit.

Thanks for playing, let's ask Johnny what you've won.....it's the Home Version of our game so you can play along at home.
Isn't that great?

Yer welcome.

[Pale Rider]

Yer ad hominems just make you look like an even bigger loser, dipshit.

Thanks for playing, let's ask Johnny what you've won.....it's the Home Version of our game so you can play along at home.
Isn't that great?

Yer welcome.

Is that why my rep is over ten thousand, and yours is in the toilet?

Keep it up genius. You've already been warned about your mouth once that I know of. But then again, give an idiot like you enough rope and you'll hang yourself. So go ahead skippy.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

I don't care how many favoritism contests you've won, how many asses you've kissed, or how many cocks you've sucked.
And that's all yer silly "rep system" is worth.


You've already been warned about your mouth once that I know of.

Oops, another breach of board rules, talkin' about Mod activities, actions, and discipline in the open forum.

You best watch yer step, hoss.

[Spyder Jerusalem]

Keep it up genius.
Yet another conservatard realizes the truth.

It will set you free, bubba...

[Pale Rider]

I don't care how many favoritism contests you've won, how many asses you've kissed, or how many cocks you've sucked.
And that's all yer silly "rep system" is worth.



Oops, another breach of board rules, talkin' about Mod activities, actions, and discipline in the open forum.

You best watch yer step, hoss.

You remind me of a woman... gotta have the last word. So if it helps inflate your ego, go ahead. Make yourself feel good. I'm done with you here. You're not worth my attention you poor little fool.

[LOki]

That "the Creator" is officially identified in US government documents.No.When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
Yes, it is.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
No. They expressesed themselves consistent with their religious habits, but they did not demand a particular Creator. They did not assert that <b>their</b> (the Founder's) Creator endowed rights, but rather that each man's Creator endowed rights. The author of creation was not specified--they certainly did not specify Jesus Christ as the founders of a Christian nation certainly must.


The only "dishonest" argument here is the one trying to rewrite history... "yours and loki's."HAHA! LOLercaust!<blockquote><b>John Adams:</b><i>
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence."</i></blockquote>Rewrite this:<blockquote><b>John Adams and the unanimous 5th Senate:</b><i>
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."</i></blockquote>I have demonstrated quite handily that actual history supports my assertions---and your revisionism, based only on your convictions in wishful thinking, has been thoroughly punked by the Founders themselves.

[glockmail]

....[1]some of the Founders were certainly Christian, you have yet to demonstrate they all were.

[2].....<blockquote><b>John Adams and the unanimous 5th Senate:</b><i>
"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."</i></blockquote>

1. They signed the documents, which meant that they agreed to it in consensus.
2. What is the source and context of this quote?

[glockmail]

Yet another conservatard realizes the truth.

It will set you free, bubba... Methinks its time to ban this poster from the thread.

[LOki]

1. They signed the documents, which meant that they agreed to it in consensus.They agreed to nothing about Jesus or Christianity. You could just as easily assert, using the logic of your argument, that by this agreement by consensus the Christians in the group agreed with those who did not believe Jesus is God.

Ultimately, the actual fact of the matter is that there is nothing particularly Christian about any reference to any God in any of the founding documents--and in particular, there is no reference what-so-ever to Jesus Christ, or the religion named for Him in the founding document that is the foundation of this nation's laws.


2. What is the source and context of this quote?I have no problem submitting my sources for examination. Here you go: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli">The Treaty of Tripoli--1797</a>

[glockmail]

[1]They agreed to nothing about Jesus or Christianity. You could just as easily assert, using the logic of your argument, that by this agreement by consensus the Christians in the group agreed with those who did not believe Jesus is God.

.....

[2]I have no problem submitting my sources for examination. Here you go: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tripoli">The Treaty of Tripoli--1797</a>

1. That attempted twist in my logic has no merit, since the signers were overwhelmingly Christian and none were atheist.
2. I am always amazed to see atheists cite the Treaty of Tripoli in its draft form. However, "The Treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli and renegotiated in 1805 after the First Barbary War, at which time Article 11 was removed." This little quote was in your cited Wikipedia article as late as 6 months ago. It's curious on why you atheists felt the need to take that part out. Is it that the truth has a negative impact on your argument?

But I am really curious as to why you tried to attribute that quote to John Adams and expected me to buy into it.

[LOki]

1. That attempted twist in my logic has no merit, since the signers were overwhelmingly Christian and none were atheist.I did not twist your logic, I used it. I used it validly because "consensus" does not mean "majority rule", making the (unsubstantiated) claim that "...the signers were overwhelmingly Christian..." irrelevent.


2. I am always amazed to see atheists cite the Treaty of Tripoli in its draft form. Regardless of wether or not Article 11 was in the Arabic version of the treaty that the Pasha of Tripoli signed, "...it was undeniably a part of the treaty as approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the Senate by a unanimous vote."


However, "The Treaty was broken in 1801 by the Pasha of Tripoli and renegotiated in 1805 after the First Barbary War, at which time Article 11 was removed."So what? The 11th Article was still a valid and official statement, affirmed by the President, and a unanimous vote of the Senate--and it wasn't invalidated by the Pasha of Tripoly breaking the treaty, nor was it invalidated by the second treaty of 1805.


This little quote was in your cited Wikipedia article as late as 6 months ago.So what? It's not like the Pasha of Tripoli can invalidate what the President (a Founder of this nation), and the Senate (many of whom helped establish this nation) said about the founding of this nation.


It's curious on why you atheists felt the need to take that part out. Is it that the truth has a negative impact on your argument?It's as irrelevent as the unsubstantiated, bullshit acccusation you're making that I'm an atheist.

And I'm not at all curious as to why you engage in such unsubstantiated, bullshit acccusation rather than accept the truth of the quote--you lack the intellectual capacity, and integrity, to do otherwise.


But I am really curious as to why you tried to attribute that quote to John Adams and expected me to buy into it.Considering that as President, John Adams sent the treaty, including the 11th Article, to the Senate for ratification, why wouldn't I?

[musicman]

No. They expressesed themselves consistent with their religious habits, but they did not demand a particular Creator. They did not assert that <b>their</b> (the Founder's) Creator endowed rights, but rather that each man's Creator endowed rights.

Into how many tortured pretzel-eights are you going to try to twist logic, reason, and common sense, in your effort to sidestep the obvious? You're going to, somehow, WILL our founding fathers to have - retroactively - applied the principles of two twentieth century phenomena ("everybody gets to be right" political correctness, and Ken Schoolland's Free Market Economics - per your sig) to the forging of this nation? EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CHRISTIANS?


The author of creation was not specified--they certainly did not specify Jesus Christ as the founders of a Christian nation certainly must.

So, in "Christianity According to LOki", Jesus Christ is the author of creation? How on earth can you hope to argue that "no singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on" - when at least half the requisite knowledge for making such a statement is BLANK, EMPTY SPACE??? Don't you see that your pitiable ignorance of Christianity BANKRUPTS YOUR ARGUMENT???


HAHA! LOLercaust!<blockquote><b>John Adams:</b><i>
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of the facts and evidence."</i></blockquote>

I don't disagree with this at all, but, I really don't know why you posted it. The quote does nothing for your argument - unless you thought fattening it with a few more lines would make it appear more imposing. Shame, shame, Loki.

In the final analysis, we're each left arguing our respective convictions on this matter. But, I feel that my conviction is, A) rooted in an acceptable level of understanding of ALL the subject matter involved, and, B) not informed by the irrational fear of Christianity that makes you abandon all logic and reason.


Rewrite this:<blockquote><b>John Adams and the unanimous 5th Senate:</b><i>

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion."</i></blockquote>I have demonstrated quite handily that actual history supports my assertions---and your revisionism, based only on your convictions in wishful thinking, has been thoroughly punked by the Founders themselves.

There's no need to rewrite it. In the first place - if I felt particularly upset by it - I'd merely point out that John Adams does not equal the Founders. Even John Adams and the unanimous 5th Senate do not equal the Founders. But, it doesn't matter; I am quite at ease with the statement. Let's examine it a bit more comprehensively, shall we?

The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

President Adams was speaking in adherence to, and in compliance with, the founding document of this nation: our constitution. The entity known as our government is not founded on ANY religion - as the aforementioned entity has been explicitly instructed by the instrument of our governance - the U.S. Constitution - TO ENTERTAIN NO OPINION ON THE MATTER OF RELIGION AT ALL. Religion is none of our government's bloody business; it is a matter for the people to decide for themselves. The only prohibition regarding religion in our constitution is leveled explicitly at our government. Religion is protected from government.

This is, of course, unique in all of human history. It is Christian principle, applied to the matter of human governance.

[LOki]

Into how many tortured pretzel-eights are you going to try to twist logic, reason, and common sense, in your effort to sidestep the obvious? You're going to, somehow, WILL our founding fathers to have - retroactively - applied the principles of two twentieth century phenomena ("everybody gets to be right" political correctness, and Ken Schoolland's Free Market Economics - per your sig) to the forging of this nation? EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CHRISTIANS?Obvious Straw-Man. You cannot bring evidence or valid argument to refute my assertion, so you bring my signature into this. BRAVO!!!:clap:


So, in "Christianity According to LOki", Jesus Christ is the author of creation?For Christians, the fact that Jesus Christ is the author of creation is not in dispute.


How on earth can you hope to argue that "no singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on" - when at least half the requisite knowledge for making such a statement is BLANK, EMPTY SPACE??? Don't you see that your pitiable ignorance of Christianity BANKRUPTS YOUR ARGUMENT???This baseless accusation is still as baseless now as it was when you first posted it.


I don't disagree with this at all, but, I really don't know why you posted it. The quote does nothing for your argument - unless you thought fattening it with a few more lines would make it appear more imposing. Shame, shame, Loki.I never claimed you did disagree with it. Shame on you for implying otherwise.


In the final analysis, we're each left arguing our respective convictions on this matter. But, I feel that my conviction is, A) rooted in an acceptable level of understanding of ALL the subject matter involved, and, B) not informed by the irrational fear of Christianity that makes you abandon all logic and reason.The "...irrational fear of Christianity..." that you project upon me is a fabrication of your imagination, as are your notions of logic, reason, and "...of understanding of ALL the subject matter involved."


There's no need to rewrite it. In the first place - if I felt particularly upset by it - I'd merely point out that John Adams does not equal the Founders.But he was a Founder.


Even John Adams and the unanimous 5th Senate do not equal the Founders.But there are Founders among them.


But, it doesn't matter; I am quite at ease with the statement. Let's examine it a bit more comprehensively, shall we?

The Treaty of Tripoli
Signed by John Adams

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries....
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."

President Adams was speaking in adherence to, and in compliance with, the founding document of this nation: our constitution. The entity known as our government is not founded on ANY religion - as the aforementioned entity has been explicitly instructed by the instrument of our governance - the U.S. Constitution - TO ENTERTAIN NO OPINION ON THE MATTER OF RELIGION AT ALL. Religion is none of our government's bloody business; it is a matter for the people to decide for themselves. The only prohibition regarding religion in our constitution is leveled explicitly at our government. Religion is protected from government.I have not argued otherwise. Thank you.


This is, of course, unique in all of human history.I have not argued otherwise.


It is Christian principle, applied to the matter of human governance.It is not a princple of, or particular to Christianity, that government should not dictate religion.

[glockmail]

I did not twist your logic, I used it. I used it validly because "consensus" does not mean "majority rule", making the (unsubstantiated) claim that "...the signers were overwhelmingly Christian..." irrelevent.

Regardless of wether or not Article 11 was in the Arabic version of the treaty that the Pasha of Tripoli signed, "...it was undeniably a part of the treaty as approved by President John Adams and Secretary of State Timothy Pickering and ratified by the Senate by a unanimous vote."

So what? The 11th Article was still a valid and official statement, affirmed by the President, and a unanimous vote of the Senate--and it wasn't invalidated by the Pasha of Tripoly breaking the treaty, nor was it invalidated by the second treaty of 1805.

So what? It's not like the Pasha of Tripoli can invalidate what the President (a Founder of this nation), and the Senate (many of whom helped establish this nation) said about the founding of this nation.

It's as irrelevent as the unsubstantiated, bullshit acccusation you're making that I'm an atheist.

And I'm not at all curious as to why you engage in such unsubstantiated, bullshit acccusation rather than accept the truth of the quote--you lack the intellectual capacity, and integrity, to do otherwise.

Considering that as President, John Adams sent the treaty, including the 11th Article, to the Senate for ratification, why wouldn't I?

In the case of the DOI, the consensus was by all who signed. This is not comparable to an Act where a simple majority rules.

Article 11 in the Treaty was removed in 1805 to correct the mistake made 8 years earlier. Actions by the Pasha of Tripoli are irrelevant, except that his actions caused Congress to realize their error in attempting to placate a Muslim The fact that the Treaty exists today in its current form 202 years later confirms that Congress recognizes this simple fact: Muslims fear us because we are a Christian nation, and only respect those that they fear.

Atheists/ liberals today have forgotten this simple lesson of history, and are committed to making the same mistake in negotiations with Islamic terrorists today.

[LOki]

In the case of the DOI, the consensus was by all who signed. This is not comparable to an Act where a simple majority rules.I'm not the one arguing otherwise.


Article 11 in the Treaty was removed in 1805 to correct the mistake made 8 years earlier.Article 11 was never removed from the Treaty signed in 1797. The 1805 Treaty was a second Treaty, not a revision of the first--nice try.

[glockmail]

....

Article 11 was never removed from the Treaty signed in 1797. The 1805 Treaty was a second Treaty, not a revision of the first--nice try.

That's not the version of history that I've read. But its a moot point in regards to my earlier point.

[LOki]

That's not the version of history that I've read.Do you share your version of history with Dave Barton?


But its a moot point in regards to my earlier point.Your point is irrelevent.

[musicman]

Deleting duplicate post.

[musicman]

Obvious Straw-Man. You cannot bring evidence or valid argument to refute my assertion, so you bring my signature into this. BRAVO!!!:clap:

Not a strawman at all; you know this. Your worldview is informed by two twentieth century phenomena. In order for your assertion to hold any water, these must also have driven the actions of eighteenth century Christians - to the EXCLUSION of Christianity. It's too thin, LOki - and you know this, too. You grow more and more irrational as the desperateness of your situation becomes clearer to you. You clutch at straws. Here comes another hysterical deflection:


I never claimed you did disagree with it. Shame on you for implying otherwise.

My agreement or disagreement with the quote was never at issue; I questioned your motive in citing it. You know this as well. You're coming apart at the seams, LOki; it's sad to watch. But, wait - there's more:


But he was a Founder.

But there are Founders among them.

Now, your arguments are regressing into childlike obstinacy. And, for what? It's a point I was only addressing hypothetically, anyway. You're wilting away before my eyes.

But, here is where you finally die:


It is not a princple of, or particular to Christianity, that government should not dictate religion.

This is an extraordinary assessment of Christian principle - emanating, as it does, from a desperately flailing child who has - in the same post - demonstrated his understanding of Christianity thus:


For Christians, the fact that Jesus Christ is the author of creation is not in dispute.

This discussion could not have had a better outcome if I'd scripted it myself. Thank you so very much.

[LOki]

Double Post.

[LOki]

Not a strawman at all; you know this. Your worldview is informed by two twentieth century phenomena. In order for your assertion to hold any water, these must also have driven the actions of eighteenth century Christians - to the EXCLUSION of Christianity. It's too thin, LOki - and you know this, too. You grow more and more irrational as the desperateness of your situation becomes clearer to you. You clutch at straws. Here comes another hysterical deflection:

My agreement or disagreement with the quote was never at issue; I questioned your motive in citing it. You know this as well. You're coming apart at the seams, LOki; it's sad to watch. But, wait - there's more:

Now, your arguments are regressing into childlike obstinacy. And, for what? It's a point I was only addressing hypothetically, anyway. You're wilting away before my eyes.From "two twentieth century phenomena" to "coming apart at the seams"--all baseless fabrications made as ad-h9ominem attacks, instead of bringing valid argument. Your embrace on argumentative fallacy is certainly persistent.


But, here is where you finally die:



This is an extraordinary assessment of Christian principle - emanating, as it does, from a desperately flailing child who has - in the same post - demonstrated his understanding of Christianity thus:Again, this baseless accusation without any substantive counter. Give it up Jackass; until you bring an actual counter argument, rather than these bullshit attacks on what you have imagined are my motivations, you will continue to pathetically have zero game, and I will continue to point that out for you.




So, in "Christianity According to LOki", Jesus Christ is the author of creation? For Christians, the fact that Jesus Christ is the author of creation is not in dispute.This discussion could not have had a better outcome if I'd scripted it myself. Thank you so very much.Are you suggesting that Christians assert that Jesus is not God? If so, you have no fucking business claiming that I have no concept of what Christianity is.

[musicman]

Whatever gets you through the day, LOki. You've hung yourself.

[LOki]

Whatever gets you through the day. LOki. You've hung yourself.You're still delusional.

[glockmail]

Do you share your version of history with Dave Barton?

Your point is irrelevent.
This is what happens when a liberal atheist loses an argument: circular nonsense. :pee:

[LOki]

:pee:
This is what happens when a liberal atheist loses an argument: circular nonsense. :pee:Having lost the argument, you now lie about me...again.

[glockmail]

:pee:Having lost the argument, you now lie about me...again.
Let's let the other posters on this thread be the judge of who won and who lost, shall we?

[LOki]

Let's let the other posters on this thread be the judge of who won and who lost, shall we?Submitted as if a popularity contest should be the test of such things.

[glockmail]

Submitted as if a popularity contest should be the test of such things. You certaintly are not qualified to debate, never mind judge.

[LOki]

You certaintly are not qualified to debate, never mind judge.Irony from the one who brings argumentative fallacies and no evidence to the debate.

Why don't you demonstrate how wrong I am and submit that long lost reference to Christ in the Constitution? Answer: It doesn't exist. It can't be found.

Why don't you bring quotes from the Founders asserting that the Christian religion is the foundation for this country? Answer: Such quotes aren't to be found. The Founders were protective and respectful of their religions, and they were protective and respectful of the religions of others; they just didn't found this country in the Christian religion.

Why don't you demonstrate that the princpiles this nation was founded upon are particular to Christianity? Answer: The principles this nation was founded upon are rational principles shared by rational people regardless of religion. None of the principles this nation is founded upon are particularly Christian, and none of the principles that are particular to Christianity--principles that would establish this nation as a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles--are principles this nation was founded upon.

Why do you prefer your popularity contest over the evidence? Answer: It's because you can't claim to have made the superior argument based upon evidence and valid logic.

Your every attempt to steer the debate away from evidence, verifiable facts, and valid logic, toward character assassinating lies, ad-hominem attacks, and appeals to popularity, are all the criteria that suggest that you just can't make your case, and you lack the honesty and intellectual integrity to accept it.

[Psychoblues]

Do you like the lack of argument or is your pleasure in simple truth, LOki?

[glockmail]

Irony from the one who brings argumentative fallacies and no evidence to the debate.

Why don't you demonstrate how wrong I am and submit that long lost reference to Christ in the Constitution? Answer: It doesn't exist. It can't be found.

Why don't you bring quotes from the Founders asserting that the Christian religion is the foundation for this country? Answer: Such quotes aren't to be found. The Founders were protective and respectful of their religions, and they were protective and respectful of the religions of others; they just didn't found this country in the Christian religion.

Why don't you demonstrate that the princpiles this nation was founded upon are particular to Christianity? Answer: The principles this nation was founded upon are rational principles shared by rational people regardless of religion. None of the principles this nation is founded upon are particularly Christian, and none of the principles that are particular to Christianity--principles that would establish this nation as a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles--are principles this nation was founded upon.

Why do you prefer your popularity contest over the evidence? Answer: It's because you can't claim to have made the superior argument based upon evidence and valid logic.

Your every attempt to steer the debate away from evidence, verifiable facts, and valid logic, toward character assassinating lies, ad-hominem attacks, and appeals to popularity, are all the criteria that suggest that you just can't make your case, and you lack the honesty and intellectual integrity to accept it.

We've been through all this before. Remarkably familiar. Are you cutting and pasting you old posts? :pee:

[LOki]

We've been through all this before. Remarkably familiar. Are you cutting and pasting you old posts? :pee:I take this as an assertion that you're an incontinent monkey without a substantive reply.

[glockmail]

I take this as an assertion that you're an incontinent monkey without a substantive reply.
A better assumption is that I haven't the desire to go over over the same issues with the same obstinate poster. :pee:

[LOki]

A better assumption is that I haven't the desire to go over over the same issues with the same obstinate poster. :pee:Then put on your diaper and go away.

[musicman]

Why don't you demonstrate that the princpiles this nation was founded upon are particular to Christianity? Answer: The principles this nation was founded upon are rational principles shared by rational people regardless of religion.

But, you have failed to demonstrate that rationality alone had ever before led man to an instrument of governance comparable to the U.S. Constitution. Instead, you persist in the patently IRRATIONAL assertion that eighteenth century Christians - in the eye of the evolving Protestant Reformation - at last, throwing off the past bonds of ignorance and tyranny, and arriving at a hard-won, enlightened understanding of Christian principle - then elected to devise a system of governance based on some new, magically acquired grasp of pure rationality that DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED the Christianity which informed their worldview. And, all this, while making it painfully clear that you know nothing of Christianity yourself. It's madness, LOki.


None of the principles this nation is founded upon are particularly Christian, and none of the principles that are particular to Christianity--principles that would establish this nation as a Christian nation, founded on Christian principles--are principles this nation was founded upon.

I don't know how you can continue to spout this anti-logic. Is it because you need, so desperately, for it to be true?

[glockmail]

Then put on your diaper and go away.:lame2:

[glockmail]

....

I don't know how you can continue to spout this anti-logic. Is it because you need, so desperately, for it to be true? Atheists have tremendous faith in their belief of nothing. :laugh2:

[LOki]

But, you have failed to demonstrate that rationality alone had ever before led man to an instrument of governance comparable to the U.S. Constitution.I'm not asserting that rationality alone had ever before led man to an instrument of governance comparable to the U.S. Constitution, so i don't have to demonstrate it.


Instead, you persist in the patently IRRATIONAL assertion that eighteenth century Christians - in the eye of the evolving Protestant Reformation - at last, throwing off the past bonds of ignorance and tyranny, and arriving at a hard-won, enlightened understanding of Christian principle - then elected to devise a system of governance based on some new, magically acquired grasp of pure rationality that DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED the Christianity which informed their worldview.You have just made this accusation up out of absolute nothing--you have "DELIBERATELY EXCLUDED" any substantiation for this accusation against me, because you have none, and are desperately trying to construct a straw-man to beat.

Unlike Unlike you (or me) Thomas Jefferson was there, and instrumental in the founding of this nation, and had this to say about reason:<blockquote><b>Thomas Jefferson:</b>
<i>"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. <b>Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.</b>"</i></blockquote>Unlike Unlike you (or me) Thomas Paine was there, and instrumental in the founding of this nation, and had this to say about reason:<blockquote><b>Thomas Paine:</b>
<i>"But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. <b>The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God.</b> Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work."</i></blockquote>Unlike you (or me) John Adams was there, and instrumental in the founding of this nation, and had this to say about it's founding:<blockquote><b>John Adams:</b>
<i>"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; <b>it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.</b>"</i></blockquote>

And, all this, while making it painfully clear that you know nothing of Christianity yourself. It's madness, LOki.Coming from the one who finds fault with my assertion that Christians believe Jesus is God, it's painfully clear that your assessment of my knowledge of Christianity is based in a fantasy world far removed from reality.


I don't know how you can continue to spout this anti-logic. Is it because you need, so desperately, for it to be true?Demonstrate this anti-logic with sometihng other than your well practiced logical fallacies and false accusations.


Atheists have tremendous faith in their belief of nothing. :laugh2:I doubt that you, or your partner in false accusations, musicman, will attempt to bring substance to your accusations or to your argument.

[glockmail]

......

Unlike Unlike you (or me) Thomas Jefferson was there, and instrumental in the founding of this nation, and had this to say about reason:<blockquote><b>Thomas Jefferson:</b>
<i>"Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. <b>Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.</b>"</i></blockquote>Unlike Unlike you (or me) Thomas Paine was there, and instrumental in the founding of this nation, and had this to say about reason:<blockquote><b>Thomas Paine:</b>
<i>"But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. <b>The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God.</b> Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work."</i></blockquote>Unlike you (or me) John Adams was there, and instrumental in the founding of this nation, and had this to say about it's founding:<blockquote><b>John Adams:</b>
<i>"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; <b>it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.</b>"</i></blockquote>
.......

By these quotes it is apparent that all three of these men acknowledge that the Christian God was not represented by the King, nor by any European government, but instead required a deeper understanding of not simply the Bible but reason and nature around them. This is excellent evidence that true Christianity was the foundation for the nation that they would create. :D

[LOki]

By these quotes it is apparent that all three of these men acknowledge that the Christian God was not represented by the King, nor by any European government, but instead required a deeper understanding of not simply the Bible but reason and nature around them. This is excellent evidence that true Christianity was the foundation for the nation that they would create. :DThere is no aknowledgemet of the Christian God in any of the quotes provided. Keep making that shit up.

[glockmail]

There is no aknowledgemet of the Christian God in any of the quotes provided. Keep making that shit up. It's right there, man. Sorry you can't comprehend the obvious.

[LOki]

It's right there, man. Sorry you can't comprehend the obvious.The mentioning or aknowledgment of Jesus is in the quotes provided exists nowhere--you are making such mentioning or aknowledgment of Jesus up.

[glockmail]

The mentioning or aknowledgment of Jesus is in the quotes provided exists nowhere--you are making such mentioning or aknowledgment of Jesus up. So your determination of proof is now apparently that all quotes have to have a mention of Jesus. Not even my preist talks that way. He's mentioned in other quotes from the Founders, just not these.

[musicman]

Christian principle proceeds from the premise that - since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden brought sin and corruption into this world - man's nature is hopelessly, irretrievably depraved; hence, his need for salvation. This is his only hope; left to his own devices, his nature is impervious to perfectibility, or even meaningful improvement. He is corrupt to his core - he needs God's help.

Men, informed by this principle, could construct a governmental system of only one type: one which proceeds from the assumption that governments instituted by men MUST - left unchecked - degenerate into tyrannies; this is an inescapable circumstance of human nature.

One who would argue that the U.S. Constitution is anything less than the culmination of man's hard-won, enlightened understanding of Christian principle, as it relates to human governance, has - as I see it - four avenues of attack:

1. That man's nature is not thus.

This one should come with a warning label: take as long a look at human history as you can stand, and prepare to have your illusions shattered.

2. That the U.S. Constitution is not designed thus.

This one is solved with a very quick read: Amendments I and X. Aren't they just BRIMMING with optimism over the nature of governments?

3. That non-Christians have ever designed a governmental system thus.

Have at it - and good luck to you.

4. That Christian principle does not proceed thus.

This one should come with warning labels, flashing lights, and honking horns, for - in order to advance this argument intelligently - one must learn something of Christian principle. This is a dangerous proposition, for one then runs the risk of actually getting to know the character of God. He'll steal your heart; then, what a miserable little atheist you'll be.

[LOki]

So your determination of proof is now apparently that all quotes have to have a mention of Jesus. Not even my preist talks that way. He's mentioned in other quotes from the Founders, just not these.AND YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED A SINGLE ONE.

[Pale Rider]

AND YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED A SINGLE ONE.
Why should he? Your nit picking "Jesus" is totally irrelevant to this debate.

However, I do realize you've run out of things to say, and now you're desperately trying to hang on to the last thing "you think" is relevant. It isn't.

[LOki]

Christian principle proceeds from the premise that - since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden brought sin and corruption into this world - man's nature is hopelessly, irretrievably depraved; hence, his need for salvation. This is his only hope; left to his own devices, his nature is impervious to perfectibility, or even meaningful improvement. He is corrupt to his core - he needs God's help.

Men, informed by this principle, could construct a governmental system of only one type: one which proceeds from the assumption that governments instituted by men MUST - left unchecked - degenerate into tyrannies; this is an inescapable circumstance of human nature.I don't argue that man's fall from grace is not a Christian notion--it's just not unique to Christianity. Furthermore this principle you are applying here is not at all neccessary to procede to construct a government from an aknowledgment of the "inescapable circumstance of human nature."


One who would argue that the U.S. Constitution is anything less than the culmination of man's hard-won, enlightened understanding of Christian principle, as it relates to human governance, has - as I see it - four avenues of attack:

1. That man's nature is not thus.

This one should come with a warning label: take as long a look at human history as you can stand, and prepare to have your illusions shattered.Take a long look at human history and show me where man was ever in a state of grace that he could fall from. You may refer to the Bible, but there are those who assert that the Bible is more allegory and metaphor--particularly the Eden story--than historical fact. If you study human nature, and verifiable history, you're in no danger of having any notions of man's imperfections and depravities "shattered."


2. That the U.S. Constitution is not designed thus.

This one is solved with a very quick read: Amendments I and X. Aren't they just BRIMMING with optimism over the nature of governments?Nothing in the Consititution asserts, aknowledges, suggests, or hints at some notion that man was once in a state of grace, that man fell from that state. Even if it did, that is not particularly Christian, and the actual particulars of Christian princple are not to be found in the Constitution.

BTW: The 1st Amendment to the Constitution is directly contradictory to a Christianity based nation that on foundational principle must adhere to the 1st Commandment.


3. That non-Christians have ever designed a governmental system thus.

Have at it - and good luck to you.Plenty of Muslim nations proceded from the premise that man fell from God's grace, and that therefore, man's government is not to be trusted and God's law and revealed will are the only governance the righteous should follow.


4. That Christian principle does not proceed thus.

This one should come with warning labels, flashing lights, and honking horns, for - in order to advance this argument intelligently - one must learn something of Christian principle. This is a dangerous proposition, for one then runs the risk of actually getting to know the character of God. He'll steal your heart; then, what a miserable little atheist you'll be.Yet in order to accept that this princple you've gone on and on about to be a Christian principle, you must learn something of Christian principle--you have to accept that Christians assert that Jesus Christ is God.

[LOki]

Why should he? Your nit picking "Jesus" is totally irrelevant to this debate.

However, I do realize you've run out of things to say, and now you're desperately trying to hang on to the last thing "you think" is relevant. It isn't.You have odd notions of relevence. If Jesus is not relevent to the foundation of a Christian nation, then nothing is.

[glockmail]

AND YOU HAVE NOT PROVIDED A SINGLE ONE."It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" Patrick Henry

:laugh2:

[glockmail]

In the 17th century there was another clear example of staunch Christian believers defending the "Crown Rights" of Jesus Christ. They willingly resolved to give total allegiance to their Savior in spite of the disfavor of the English Crown which resulted in the bloody martyrdom of thousands of Scottish saints. In 1560 the Reform Faith was established as the national religion of Scotland. Forty-three years later in 1603 James VI of Scotland became James I of England. In 1618 the king tried to conform the worship of the Scottish churches to the pattern of the Anglican Church, which policy was pursued by his son Charles I in 1625. The Scottish Presbyterians rejected this royal usurpation by signing the National Covenant in 1638 which declared religious independence from the state church. Again they signed the Solemn League and Covenant in 1643 which pledged themselves in their worship and allegiance only to the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ. Thus they became known as the Scottish Covenanters. They opposed the theory of the Divine Right of Kings and taught that limitless sovereignty pertains to God alone.



In Paul Revere's midnight ride to Lexington to announce the coming of British Regulars, he warned two patriot leaders, the gray-haired Sam Adams and John Hancock who were staying at the home of Parson Jonas Clarke.


Such dissenting views brought strong opposition from King Charles II in 1662 and Presbyterianism was outlawed and the Covenants were denounced as illegal. Following the Biblical admonition of obedience to the Sovereign God instead of an earthly king made the Covenanters ‘rebels’ to the state. Many Scottish preachers, driven from their pulpits, resorted to field preaching. Thousands of Covenanters were hunted down, jailed (sometimes without trial), brutally tortured and killed. In spite of severe persecution and deprivations, many of these despised religious ‘rebels’ met their vicious attackers proudly waving their banners which read:

‘FOR THE WORD OF GOD AND THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS’ and "FOR CHRIST’S CROWN AND COVENANT."

In spite of certain death, a bleeding remnant of 200 Scottish Covenanters at Blackgannoch Moss in May 1685, loudly proclaimed their fervent declaration of faith:

"LET KING JESUS REIGN, AND ALL HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED!"

Another historical example of the Church’s declaration of the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ is clearly seen in the theology of the Puritan Fathers as follows. "Basic in Puritan political thought is the doctrine of divine sovereignty. It was the sovereign God who created the state and gave to it its powers and functions. The earthly magistrate held his position and exercised his power by a divine decree. He was a minister of God under common grace for the execution of the laws of God among the people at large, for the main tenancy of law and order, and for so ruling the state that it would provide an atmosphere favorable for the preaching of the Gospel. He was to so rule that the people of God, the elect, could live individually and collectively a life that was truly Christian."

(From: A Theological Interpretation of American History" by C. Gregg Singer)

The Christian doctrine of the sovereignty of God and the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ was prevalent in the minds of many patriots preceding and during the American Revolution in their struggle against King George III.

The men of Marlborough, MA unanimously proclaimed in January 1773 that "Death is more eligible than slavery. A free-born people are not required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny...(we) implore the Ruler above the skies, that He would make bare His arm in defense of His Church and people, and let Israel go."

(From: "The Light and the Glory" by Peter Marshall and David Manuel)

Not only from pulpit and town hall came the cries for liberty, but now the average colonist blended his voice in support of total independence from King George. Most Crown-appointed governors remained loyal to their king. One wrote to the Board of Trade in England saying: "If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ." ("The Myth of Separation" by David Barton) This may have been the incident which gave rise to the cry which was carried by the messengers of the newly formed Committee for Intercolonial Correspondence:

"NO KING BUT KING JESUS"

Either your God will be your King or your king will be your god.


On April 18, 1775 John Adams and John Hancock were at the home of Rev. Jonas Clarke, a Lexington pastor and militia leader. That same night Paul Revere arrived to warn them of the approaching Redcoats. The next morning British Major Pitcairn shouted to an assembled regiment of Minutemen; "Disperse, ye villains, lay down your arms in the name of George the Sovereign King of England." The immediate response of Rev. Jonas Clarke or one of his company was:

"We recognize no Sovereign but God and no King but Jesus."

In this crucial hour of our nation’s history it is past time that the true saints of God give total allegiance to the Kingship of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. The crisis of the ages demands that we renew the historic battle-cry of our Christian Forefathers –

"WE HAVE NO KING BUT KING JESUS!"http://www.truthinhistory.org/no-king-but-jesus.html

:blowup: <--- LOki

[LOki]

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!" Patrick Henry

:laugh2:It cannot be demonstrated that Patrick Henry ever said that. It's attribution comes from David Barton, who is for the 1st Amendment what Michael Bellesiles is for the 2nd Amendment--a guy with an aggenda who presents facts and then conveniently can't come up with sources. I'm not surprised you'd take sides with him--you share the same penchant for making fabrications.

Also, according to your own criteria (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=86317#post86317), Patrick Henry was not a Founding Father of this nation.

[LOki]

I must admit Glockmail, establishing Jesus Chist as king is without doubt, and unambiguously, a neccessary hallmark of a nation founded upon Christianity--too bad you don't.
<a href="http://www.truthinhistory.org/no-king-but-jesus.html"><b>No King But Jesus </b></a>
In the 17th century there was another clear example of staunch Christian believers defending the "Crown Rights" of Jesus Christ. They willingly resolved to give total allegiance to their Savior in spite of the disfavor of the English Crown which resulted in the bloody martyrdom of thousands of Scottish saints. In 1560 the Reform Faith was established as the national religion of Scotland. Forty-three years later in 1603 James VI of Scotland became James I of England. In 1618 the king tried to conform the worship of the Scottish churches to the pattern of the Anglican Church, which policy was pursued by his son Charles I in 1625. The Scottish Presbyterians rejected this royal usurpation by signing the National Covenant in 1638 which declared religious independence from the state church. Again they signed the Solemn League and Covenant in 1643 which pledged themselves in their worship and allegiance only to the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ. Thus they became known as the Scottish Covenanters. They opposed the theory of the Divine Right of Kings and taught that limitless sovereignty pertains to God alone.



In Paul Revere's midnight ride to Lexington to announce the coming of British Regulars, he warned two patriot leaders, the gray-haired Sam Adams and John Hancock who were staying at the home of Parson Jonas Clarke.
Paul Revere's midnight ride to Lexington to announce the coming of British Regulars did not occur in Scotland or the 17th century.

The Scottish Presbyterians did not proclaim Jesus Christ the King of the United States of America in 1643.


<a href="http://www.truthinhistory.org/no-king-but-jesus.html"><b>No King But Jesus </b></a>
Such dissenting views brought strong opposition from King Charles II in 1662 and Presbyterianism was outlawed and the Covenants were denounced as illegal. Following the Biblical admonition of obedience to the Sovereign God instead of an earthly king made the Covenanters ‘rebels’ to the state. Many Scottish preachers, driven from their pulpits, resorted to field preaching. Thousands of Covenanters were hunted down, jailed (sometimes without trial), brutally tortured and killed. In spite of severe persecution and deprivations, many of these despised religious ‘rebels’ met their vicious attackers proudly waving their banners which read:

‘FOR THE WORD OF GOD AND THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS’ and "FOR CHRIST’S CROWN AND COVENANT."
Scotsmen, in Scotland, did not establish Jesus Christ as king of the United States of America, in 1662.


<a href="http://www.truthinhistory.org/no-king-but-jesus.html"><b>No King But Jesus </b></a>
In spite of certain death, a bleeding remnant of 200 Scottish Covenanters at Blackgannoch Moss in May 1685, loudly proclaimed their fervent declaration of faith:

"LET KING JESUS REIGN, AND ALL HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED!"200 Scottish Covenanters at Blackgannoch Moss did not establish Jesus Christ as king of the United States of America in May, 1685.


<a href="http://www.truthinhistory.org/no-king-but-jesus.html"><b>No King But Jesus </b></a>
Another historical example of the Church’s declaration of the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ is clearly seen in the theology of the Puritan Fathers as follows. "Basic in Puritan political thought is the doctrine of divine sovereignty. It was the sovereign God who created the state and gave to it its powers and functions. The earthly magistrate held his position and exercised his power by a divine decree. He was a minister of God under common grace for the execution of the laws of God among the people at large, for the main tenancy of law and order, and for so ruling the state that it would provide an atmosphere favorable for the preaching of the Gospel. He was to so rule that the people of God, the elect, could live individually and collectively a life that was truly Christian."

(From: A Theological Interpretation of American History" by C. Gregg Singer)
God is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution of the United states of America, and God is certianly not declared king of the United States of America, and Jesus Christ in particular was not established king of the United States of America.


<a href="http://www.truthinhistory.org/no-king-but-jesus.html"><b>No King But Jesus </b></a>
The Christian doctrine of the sovereignty of God and the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ was prevalent in the minds of many patriots preceding and during the American Revolution in their struggle against King George III.

The men of Marlborough, MA unanimously proclaimed in January 1773 that "Death is more eligible than slavery. A free-born people are not required by the religion of Jesus Christ to submit to tyranny...(we) implore the Ruler above the skies, that He would make bare His arm in defense of His Church and people, and let Israel go."

(From: "The Light and the Glory" by Peter Marshall and David Manuel)
The men of Marlborough Massachussets did not unamously claim that Jesus Christ is the king of the United States in 1773.



<a href="http://www.truthinhistory.org/no-king-but-jesus.html"><b>No King But Jesus </b></a>
Not only from pulpit and town hall came the cries for liberty, but now the average colonist blended his voice in support of total independence from King George. Most Crown-appointed governors remained loyal to their king. One wrote to the Board of Trade in England saying: "If you ask an American, who is his master? He will tell you he has none, nor any governor but Jesus Christ." ("The Myth of Separation" by David Barton) This may have been the incident which gave rise to the cry which was carried by the messengers of the newly formed Committee for Intercolonial Correspondence:

"NO KING BUT KING JESUS"

Either your God will be your King or your king will be your god.


On April 18, 1775 John Adams and John Hancock were at the home of Rev. Jonas Clarke, a Lexington pastor and militia leader. That same night Paul Revere arrived to warn them of the approaching Redcoats. The next morning British Major Pitcairn shouted to an assembled regiment of Minutemen; "Disperse, ye villains, lay down your arms in the name of George the Sovereign King of England." The immediate response of Rev. Jonas Clarke or one of his company was:

"We recognize no Sovereign but God and no King but Jesus."

In this crucial hour of our nation’s history it is past time that the true saints of God give total allegiance to the Kingship of our Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. The crisis of the ages demands that we renew the historic battle-cry of our Christian Forefathers –

"WE HAVE NO KING BUT KING JESUS!"Setting aside the enormous grain of salt one must take with anything David Barton claims is historically factual, in 1775, John Adams and John Hancock, at the home of Rev. Jonas Clarke, did not establish Jesus Christ the king of the United States of America, an in the end, when they formed this nation under the Constitution, it appears they all, from the Founding Fathers who signed the Consitution and Bill Of Rights, to the "average colonist", settled on just asserting "NO KING!" for this nation--including Jesus.

[musicman]

For clarity's sake, I'll restate my position:


One who would argue that the U.S. Constitution is anything less than the culmination of man's hard-won, enlightened understanding of Christian principle, as it relates to human governance, has - as I see it - four avenues of attack:

1. That man's nature is not thus.

2. That the U.S. Constitution is not designed thus.

3. That non-Christians have ever designed a governmental system thus.

4. That Christian principle does not proceed thus.

Let's begin, shall we?



I don't argue that man's fall from grace is not a Christian notion--it's just not unique to Christianity. Furthermore this principle you are applying here is not at all neccessary to procede to construct a government from an aknowledgment of the "inescapable circumstance of human nature."

Avenues #2 and#3 - dead ends. You would need to demonstrate that another governmental system in all of human history has proceeded thus. You haven't managed that. Hint: this isn't it...


Plenty of Muslim nations proceded from the premise that man fell from God's grace, and that therefore, man's government is not to be trusted and God's law and revealed will are the only governance the righteous should follow.

...since it doesn't proceed from the uniquely Christian acceptance of man's imperviousness to perfectibility. To the contrary, it presumes to elevate mere man to "arbiter of religious righteousness" - even unto death, as we have seen. It is, in short, a theocracy; as far removed from Christian principle as one can get.


Take a long look at human history and show me where man was ever in a state of grace that he could fall from. You may refer to the Bible, but there are those who assert that the Bible is more allegory and metaphor--particularly the Eden story--than historical fact. If you study human nature, and verifiable history, you're in no danger of having any notions of man's imperfections and depravities "shattered."

Nothing in the Consititution asserts, aknowledges, suggests, or hints at some notion that man was once in a state of grace, that man fell from that state.


Avenue #2 - still a dead end. Requires the irrational supposition that 18th century Christians suddenly decided to interpret the cornerstone of their worldview as "more allegory and metaphor...than historical fact". You have failed to support this.


Even if it did, that is not particularly Christian, and the actual particulars of Christian princple are not to be found in the Constitution.


Yet in order to accept that this princple you've gone on and on about to be a Christian principle, you must learn something of Christian principle--you have to accept that Christians assert that Jesus Christ is God.

I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. You are a bright and passionate fighter. But, you have a blind spot - YOUR imperviousness to any understanding of Christianity. Yet - in that context - you appear ready to argue, until The Second Coming, against the clear origins of this nation's founding - armed with no better knowledge of the topic than you display in the two above posts. Add these to your earlier summations of Christian principle - that "Jesus is in charge", or that He is the "Author of creation" - and your argument falls dead.

But, you don't stop there. To your fundamental assertion...


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on

...you hold the final torch...


BTW: The 1st Amendment to the Constitution is directly contradictory to a Christianity based nation that on foundational principle must adhere to the 1st Commandment.

...and send up, in a magnificent blaze of glory, any notion that you possess the slightest inkling of what you're talking about.

Crack a book, LOki. Learn something about Christianity before you try to subtract it from the equation of this nation's founding. Passion is not enough. Needing for your assertions to be true is not enough. You must arm yourself with knowledge. Be CAREFUL, though; remember my warning: if God gets into your heart, he'll change you.

[LOki]

Avenues #2 and#3 - dead ends. You would need to demonstrate that another governmental system in all of human history has proceeded thus. You haven't managed that. Hint: this isn't it...<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=98949#post98949">LOki</a>:</b>
<i>"Plenty of Muslim nations proceded from the premise that man fell from God's grace, and that therefore, man's government is not to be trusted and God's law and revealed will are the only governance the righteous should follow."</i></blockquote>
...since it doesn't proceed from the uniquely Christian acceptance of man's imperviousness to perfectibility. To the contrary, it presumes to elevate mere man to "arbiter of religious righteousness" - even unto death, as we have seen. It is, in short, a theocracy; as far removed from Christian principle as one can get.Here you demonstrate the weakness of your argument--in order to prove your point, you demand that I first accept it as proven. This is known as Begging the Question musicman. You've been callled on it before, and had it explained to you, and just like a question begging retard, you continue with it. I'll bet this is just the tip of your logial fallacy iceberg in your response. Let's just see, but first let me point out some more errors of yours: Proving that other governments were not founded upon Christian DOES NOT prove that the United States was. Plenty of Muslim nations have indeed proceded from the premise that man fell from God's grace, and that therefore, man's government is not to be trusted and God's law and revealed will are the only governance the righteous should follow--this is no less a Christian princple because the Founders of the United States of America, 1300 years after the principle of Christianity were cannonized, abandoned superstitious intolerance in favor of rational tolerance to achieve peace, liberty, and protect every man's right of conscience.

Avenue #2 - still a dead end. Requires the irrational supposition that 18th century Christians suddenly decided to interpret the cornerstone of their worldview as "more allegory and metaphor...than historical fact". You have failed to support this.I actually have, but you have to read my posts, rather than invent fictictious motives for me, and make unsubstantiated accusations about me. It's also wise to not demand from me proof of my assertion when you are categorically unwilling to provide proof for your own. Here you go:<blockquote><b>Thomas Paine:</b>
<i>"But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. <b>The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God.</b> Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. <b>The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work.</b>"</i></blockquote>You might also consider looking into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment">The European Enlightenment.</a>

I have thoroughly enjoyed this discussion. You are a bright and passionate fighter. But, you have a blind spot - YOUR imperviousness to any understanding of Christianity.You're an unremorseful idiot without any sense or substance to back-up that accusation.


Yet - in that context - you appear ready to argue, until The Second Coming, against the clear origins of this nation's founding - armed with no better knowledge of the topic than you display in the two above posts.In your typical bullshit form, you pile on more unsubtantiated accusations as if the mass of them will lend credibility to them. The fallacy you're engaging in here is three-fold; it's Straw-man because in your inabilty to mount a substantive and valid rebuttal of my points, you create this "imperviousness to any understanding of Christianity" to attack; it's Ad-Hominem because you seek to diminish validity of the point being made by attacking the one presenting the point; and it's Ad-Nauseam because you continue to repeat this unsubstantiated accusation over and over as if such repetition will grant validity to it.

Add these to your earlier summations of Christian principle - that "Jesus is in charge", or that He is the "Author of creation" - and your argument falls dead.And you still offer no substantive refutation. Let's check your knowledge of Christianity and have you tell us all in clear language: For Christians, is Jesus not the supreme authority, and thus in charge? For Christians, is Jesus not God, and thus the Author of Creation? I doubt that you will--yet hope springs eternal, and I won't tire of pointing out your refusal to bring substantive argument or the lack of intellectual integrity you posses for not doing so.


But, you don't stop there. To your fundamental assertion...<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=87531#post87531">LOki</a>:</b>
<i>"...no singly identifable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded upon."</i></blockquote>

...you hold the final torch...
<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=98949#post98949">LOki</a>:</b>
<i>"BTW: The 1st Amendment to the Constitution is directly contradictory to a Christianity based nation that on foundational principle must adhere to the 1st Commandment."</i></blockquote>
...and send up, in a magnificent blaze of glory, any notion that you possess the slightest inkling of what you're talking about.This repeated unsubstantiated accusation again, presented from intellectual cowardice. You won't ever actually attempt to refute these assertions, because you have no substantive refutation. You bring only your convictions--and engaging in valid argument, supported by evidence, and free of logical fallacy, would only serve to have your unsupported convictions shattered against reality. Keep it up retard, I have far more endurance for exposing the lack of substance in your arguments, the fallacies you put in place of substance in your arguments, and your lack of intellectual integrity demonstrated by your persistent insistence on doing so.


Crack a book, LOki. Learn something about Christianity before you try to subtract it from the equation of this nation's founding.Crack a book yourself, musicman. Learn something about Christianity, and bring it as evidence to the argument before you accuse others of not knowing anything about Christianity.


Passion is not enough. Needing for your assertions to be true is not enough.Certainly not--I hope this means that you admit that you understand that needing your unsubstantiated convicions to be true is not enough either. Your logical fallacies and baseless accusations are out too.


You must arm yourself with knowledge.If this is as true for you as it is for me, why have you brought none of your "knowledge"; why have you come unarmed?


Be CAREFUL, though; remember my warning: if God gets into your heart, he'll change you.Submitted as if I'm the one who needs this warning. Likely for the purpose of distraction from your lack of substantive rebuttal. Nice, but still bullshit, try.

[musicman]

You're at the end of your rope, LOki. I can tell, because you're sinking into meanness and dishonesty.


Here you demonstrate the weakness of your argument--in order to prove your point, you demand that I first accept it as proven.

I've done no such thing; you know this. Remember - it was YOU who declared to glockmail - with no small amount of catcalling bravado, I might add - that:


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

I have merely mapped out the avenues of attack you must take in order to defend this assertion. And - when you're not inventing dishonesty on my part - you are proceeding down these dead-end avenues as surely and predictably as cold weather in Antarctica. I shall expose each one for as long as you care to play this game.


Proving that other governments were not founded upon Christian DOES NOT prove that the United States was.

They're YOUR lame examples, LOki. If you don't like the outcome, find better ones. And, at least try to keep up the PRETENSE of honesty; I never offered any such assertion, and you know THIS, as well.

Let's spell it out again:

1. That man's nature is not thus.

2. That the U.S. Constitution is not designed thus.

3. That non-Christians have ever designed a governmental system thus.

4. That Christian principle does not proceed thus.


Plenty of Muslim nations have indeed proceded from the premise that man fell from God's grace, and that therefore, man's government is not to be trusted and God's law and revealed will are the only governance the righteous should follow

Already addressed; avenue #3 - a dead end. No less dead for your having restated it.


--this is no less a Christian princple

Avenue #4 - very dangerous ground for you, LOki. Avenue #4 is a drag strip, and you're riding a broken tricycle.


because the Founders of the United States of America, 1300 years after the principle of Christianity were cannonized, abandoned superstitious intolerance in favor of rational tolerance to achieve peace, liberty, and protect every man's right of conscience.

Avenue #1 - a dead end. Ascribes to human beings the ability to construct a governmental system based on pure rationality. They have demonstrated no such ability through the whole of recorded history.


I actually have, but you have to read my posts, rather than invent fictictious motives for me, and make unsubstantiated accusations about me. It's also wise to not demand from me proof of my assertion when you are categorically unwilling to provide proof for your own. Here you go:<blockquote><b>Thomas Paine:</b>
<i>"But when the divine gift of reason begins to expand itself in the mind and calls man to reflection, he then reads and contemplates God and His works, and not in the books pretending to be revelation. <b>The creation is the Bible of the true believer in God.</b> Everything in this vast volume inspires him with sublime ideas of the Creator. <b>The little and paltry, and often obscene, tales of the Bible sink into wretchedness when put in comparison with this mighty work.</b>"</i></blockquote>

And this proves what?


You might also consider looking into <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment">The European Enlightenment.</a>

And THIS proves what?


In your typical bullshit form, you pile on more unsubtantiated accusations as if the mass of them will lend credibility to them.

No - fattening posts is YOUR game, remember?


The fallacy you're engaging in here is three-fold; it's Straw-man because in your inabilty to mount a substantive and valid rebuttal of my points, you create this "imperviousness to any understanding of Christianity" to attack;

It is no creation of mine, LOki. You appear to have made it your life's work.


it's Ad-Hominem because you seek to diminish validity of the point being made by attacking the one presenting the point;


You're an unremorseful idiot without any sense or substance to back-up that accusation.

I'm sorry - what were you saying?


and it's Ad-Nauseam because you continue to repeat this unsubstantiated accusation over and over as if such repetition will grant validity to it.

The rest of your post continues in this vein - that, when I say that your obvious ignorance of Christianity makes you uniquely unqualified to make a statement like...


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on

...that this amounts to an unsubstantiated accusation. You have certainly substantiated your ignorance on the topic to anyone reading your posts, who possesses even a pedestrian understanding of Christianity. But, at this point, I am unsure about quite how to proceed. It's as if I'd had a conversation like this:

Knucklehead: Einstien was out of his mind. E does NOT equal MC squared.

Musicman: That's an extraordinary assertion; certainly, you must know a lot about mathematics and physics.

Knucklehead: Well, I know that the "E" in the equation stands for "Ed".

Musicman: You are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

Knucklehead: That's an unsubstantiated accusation!

How shall I proceed, LOki? What would satisfy you?

[actsnoblemartin]

For what its worth, This country was founded with judeo-Christian values. So suck on that aclu.

[glockmail]

It cannot be demonstrated that Patrick Henry ever said that. It's attribution comes from David Barton, who is for the 1st Amendment what Michael Bellesiles is for the 2nd Amendment--a guy with an aggenda who presents facts and then conveniently can't come up with sources. I'm not surprised you'd take sides with him--you share the same penchant for making fabrications.

Also, according to your own criteria (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=86317#post86317), Patrick Henry was not a Founding Father of this nation.

Attack the source. Whouda thunk you'd stoop that low?

I never said Henry was a founder.

John Jay:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. "

[Psychoblues]

Stoops low? Who'd a thunk it??????????? You can't get much lower that the pukes defending the indefensible.

[Pale Rider]

For what its worth, This country was founded with judeo-Christian values. So suck on that aclu.

As much as the godless, Christian hating, liberal left would like to rewrite history and say it wasn't, they're just pounding sand.

America WAS founded on Christianity. Sure the founding fathers said we shouldn't write any laws condoning or protecting any religion, but THEY THEMSELVES were influenced by Christianity, because new America was itself, the vast majority, Christian. That's just the simple truth of the matter.

[LOki]

You're at the end of your rope, LOki. I can tell, because you're sinking into meanness and dishonesty.More unsubstatiated accusation as the beginning of a rebuttal that contains no substance, and in it's stead, just more unsubstantiated accusations, unsubstantiated affirmations of previous accusations, more logical fallacies, and flat denial of reality.


I've done no such thing; you know this.Denial of reality. To paraphrase your argument: "The Biblical Fall From Grace is a uniquely Christian founding principle of the United States. The Founding Fathers founded the United States on principles unique to Christianity. Therefore, the United States is founded on Christian principles unique to Christianity."

It bears repeating--besides being factually wrong, your argument is question begging.


Remember - it was YOU who declared to glockmail - with no small amount of catcalling bravado, I might add - that:
No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.I know what I said. I am not denying I said it. Yet not one example of such singly identifable Christian principle has been submitted; not by glockmail, and certainly not by you. This especially includes your Biblical Fall From Grace principle which is not demonstrably a principle this nation was founded upon, a principle omitted from the founding of nations founded prior to the founding of the US, nor even a principle unique to Christianity.


I have merely mapped out the avenues of attack you must take in order to defend this assertion. And - when you're not inventing dishonesty on my part - you are proceeding down these dead-end avenues as surely and predictably as cold weather in Antarctica. I shall expose each one for as long as you care to play this game.The bullshit of your senseless and irrelevent "avenues" has already been <a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=98949#post98949">exposed</a>.


They're YOUR lame examples, LOki. If you don't like the outcome, find better ones. And, at least try to keep up the PRETENSE of honesty; I never offered any such assertion, and you know THIS, as well.You offered this:<blockquote><a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=99155#post99155"><b>musicman:</a></b>
<i>"You would need to demonstrate that another governmental system in all of human history has proceeded thus."</i></blockquote>Let's get this clear--proving that other governments were not founded upon Christian principles DOES NOT prove that the United States was founded on Christian principles. Nor am I making the patently fallaceuos claim that other nations have to be proven to be founded on rational principles to prove that the United States was founded on rational principles. In this thread, these fallacies are all YOURS, and only YOURS.

If you wish to argue that the principles this nation was founded upon are not rational principles, I will gladly rise to that occasion. I have certainly demonstrated the Founder's intentions to use rational principles for the foundation of this nation, rather than religious principles--including those particular to Christianity. You have yet to demonstrate otherwise with any evidence or valid logic.

And just to get the logic straight musicman, I don't have to prove that any other nation was founded on rational principles to prove that the United States was; I don't have to prove other nations were founded on Christian principles to prove the United States wasn't. I must only prove that the principles this nation was founded upon are rational principles; and if I can't, the very next best thing is to prove that the Founders intended to do so. To prove that this nation is not founded as a Christian nation, I need only to find those singularly Christain princples neccessary for the foundation of such a nation to be missing--like some constitutional recognition of the supremacy of Jesus, for instance. On the other hand, you, in order to demonstrate that this nation was founded as a Christian Nation upon Christian principles, must demonstrate that the actual principles this nation was founded upon are actually Christian principles, and also unique to Christianity--like some constitutional recognition of the supremacy of Jesus, for instance.




Let's spell it out again:

1. That man's nature is not thus.

2. That the U.S. Constitution is not designed thus.

3. That non-Christians have ever designed a governmental system thus.

4. That Christian principle does not proceed thus.


Already addressed; avenue #3 - a dead end. No less dead for your having restated it.Avenue #3 already demonstrated as bullshit, but well worth illuminating it's bullshit nature even further: There is nothing in Christian principles that makes Christianity any more tolerant of other religions than Islam is or was, or any more founded in The Fall From Grace than Islam is, or made 18th century Christians less lethally judgmental than Muslims. Your "imperviousness to perfectibility" is embraced no more by the Muslim faith in principle, than the Christian faith embraces it in principle; and this test of yours offered in rebuttal, regarding religious intolerance--..."it presumes to elevate mere man to "arbiter of religious righteousness" - even unto death,"...--has a long history of being strongly held by Chistians. A history rational folks would like to avoid, and the rational folks who founded this nation managed to avoid by NOT creating a Christian nation founded on Christianity, and instead founded this nation on rational principles.

In fact, where you demand that Christian principles do not "...presume(s) to elevate mere man to 'arbiter of religious righteousness'", Benjamin Franklin--a Founding Father of this nation--unambiguosly asserts his opinion to the contrary:<blockquote><b>Benjamin Franklin:</b>
<i>"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both there (England) and in New England."</i></blockquote>I might suggest, musicman, that you take him seriously while you attempt to disavow the intolerance of Christian principles to freedom of religion.


Avenue #4 - very dangerous ground for you, LOki. Avenue #4 is a drag strip, and you're riding a broken tricycle.Your Avenue #4 is irrelevent. I have not denied that the Fall From Grace is a Christian principle. There is just zero evidence that the Fall From Grace is a princple on which the United States is founded.<blockquote><b>James Madison:</b>
<i>"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion with all other religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"</i></blockquote>Outside of your delusions, in the real world, the actual principle salient to this discussion, the principle that our Founding Fathers fought for, was not a Christian principle in any sense--it was the right to freely worship <b>ANY</b> god in any manner, according to one's own conscience. That principle, all by itself, precludes this nation from being a Christian nation in its founding principles. That principle is not diminished in the least by any mention of "Nature's God" in the Declaration of Independence, and is strongly affirmed by the 1st Amendment to The Constitution of the USA.


Avenue #1 - a dead end. Ascribes to human beings the ability to construct a governmental system based on pure rationality. They have demonstrated no such ability through the whole of recorded history.Wrong. The United States of America is founded upon rational principles, and not founded upon The Biblical Fall From Grace.<blockquote><b>James Madison:</b>
<i>"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses."</i></blockquote>"It will never be pretended..." except by you musicman (throw in glockmail and Pale Rider too), and you will never aknowledge "that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses" because evidence and valid logic are meaningless to you.


And this proves what?

And THIS proves what?Do you even bother to read your own challenges? Or are you denying that the European Enlightanment did not occurr in the 18th century for people who lived in the 18th century? Perhaps you are denying that the European Enlightenment was characterized by a newly enhanced respect for evidence, valid logic, and founding one's beliefs in reason rather than faith and/or superstitions. Perhaps you deny that it "...advocated Reason as the primary basis of authority". Perhaps you are denying that the Founders of this nation were students of the European Enlightenment. Perhaps you deny that they were influenced by the writings of Thomas Paine, Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and David Hume. Perhaps you are denying that Thomas Paine was a Founder of this Nation and that the quote provided favors reason over faith. Perhaps you are in complete denial that Thomas Paine, the Founding Fathers, the European Enlightenment and its contributors, and their influences ever existed.

This is verifable fact--many Europeans and Americans of the 18th century--particularly those instrumental in the founding of the United States--did, in fact decide to interpret the Biblical worldview as "more allegory and metaphor...than historical fact" in favor of a rational worldview based on verifiable evidence, valid logic, and reason.


No - fattening posts is YOUR game, remember?More unfounded accusation. Nicely enhanced by projection. Remember musicman, your argument is over-fat with unsubstatiated accusations--you're the one who is still piling them on.


It is no creation of mine, LOki. You appear to have made it your life's work.You have made it up entirely in denial of your own lack of understanding of Christianity, and your obvious refusal to aknowledge anything but your imaginings, and unsubstantiated opinions as fact.


The rest of your post continues in this vein - that, when I say that your obvious ignorance of Christianity makes you uniquely unqualified to make a statement like...

No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.
...that this amounts to an unsubstantiated accusation. You have certainly substantiated your ignorance on the topic to anyone reading your posts, who possesses even a pedestrian understanding of Christianity. But, at this point, I am unsure about quite how to proceed. It's as if I'd had a conversation like this:

Knucklehead: Einstien was out of his mind. E does NOT equal MC squared.

Musicman: That's an extraordinary assertion; certainly, you must know a lot about mathematics and physics.

Knucklehead: Well, I know that the "E" in the equation stands for "Ed".

Musicman: You are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

Knucklehead: That's an unsubstantiated accusation!

How shall I proceed, LOki? What would satisfy you?
Let me fix this little vignette for you, so it is accurate, and consistent with reality:<blockquote>LOki: Christians believe that Jesus is Author of Creation.

musicman: You obviously don't know anything about Christianity; you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

LOki: That's an extraordinary assertion; certainly, you must know a lot about Christianity.

musicman: Well, I know that you obviously don't know anything about Christianity; you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

LOki: Really? What do you base this on?

musicman: Well, I know that you obviously don't know anything about Christianity; you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

LOki: Yes. You said that before. But what do you base this accusation on? What proof? What evidence?

musicman: First, you obviously don't know anything about Christianity; secondly, you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

LOki: I see that you must have a problem with what I said about the Christian belief that Jesus is Author of Creation, but what is that problem exactly?

musicman: The problem is, you obviously don't know anything about Christianity; you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

LOki: Yes, you keep saying that, but you fail to provide a reason for saying so.

musicman: The reason is, you obviously don't know anything about Christianity; you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made.

LOki: Repeating these unsubstantiated accusations does not constitute valid reasons for making them--you need to explain youself; bring evidence and valid logic.

musicman: How dare you assert I am making unsubstantiated accusations when you obviously don't know anything about Christianity; you are obviously unqualified to advance the assertion you have made. What do you want from me, LOki? Look, I can make up a little dialouge that proves you're being unreasonable!

LOki: LOL.</blockquote>

[LOki]

Attack the source. Whouda thunk you'd stoop that low?Pointing out verifaible facts is not stooping low.


I never said Henry was a founder.Then what's your point in bringing him into this discussion?



John Jay:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!"Since Patrick Henry didn't say this, you're going to present it as John Jay? It was made up when you posted before, it is no less made up now.



John Jay:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. "Yet the our nation's primary founding document--the US Constitution--flatly and specifically rejects the notion that religion should be a qualifying criteria for holding any public office or trust in the Nation. John Jay may have wanted only Christian rulers, but he achieved no foundational accomodation for this theocratic wish in the foundational document of this nation.

[LOki]

As much as the godless, Christian hating, liberal left would like to rewrite history and say it wasn't, they're just pounding sand.I have brought the thoughts and opinions of the Founding Fathers, and you have ignored the significance of their assertions. Meanwhile, on your side of this is a guy disingenuously misquoting and <b>making up</b> quotes for Patrick Henry, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison; and a host of religious opponents to the separation of church and state such as Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, and Jerry Falwell, disseminating those patent falsehoods as if they were the truth. In your mind, this is not rewriteing history. Your accusation is a joke, as are your superstitious, liberty hating, theocratic right attempts to revise history so that Christianity is prominently asserted in the Constitution.


America WAS founded on Christianity.You haven't brought evidence for this yet, and you fail to do so below--it's just restating your convictions which we have been aware of since the first time you expressed them.


Sure the founding fathers said we shouldn't write any laws condoning or protecting any religion, but THEY THEMSELVES were influenced by Christianity, because new America was itself, the vast majority, Christian. That's just the simple truth of the matter.Yeah. Below are the exact influences Christianity had on the Founders of this nation:<blockquote><b>Thomas Paine:</b>
<i>"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."</i></blockquote><blockquote><b>John Adams:</b>
<i>"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
</i></blockquote><blockquote><b>Thomas Jefferson:</b>
<i>"I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."</i></blockquote><blockquote><b>James Madison:</b>
<i>"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."</i></blockquote>

[glockmail]

[1]Pointing out verifaible facts is not stooping low.

[2]Then what's your point in bringing him into this discussion?

[1]Since Patrick Henry didn't say this, you're going to present it as John Jay? It was made up when you posted before, it is no less made up now.

[3]Yet the our nation's primary founding document--the US Constitution--flatly and specifically rejects the notion that religion should be a qualifying criteria for holding any public office or trust in the Nation. John Jay may have wanted only Christian rulers, but he achieved no foundational accomodation for this theocratic wish in the foundational document of this nation.

1. Perhaps you could point out where John Jay's quote was made-up. This is bullshit claiming quotes are made-up.
2. Why not? You brought up non-founders, such as Paine.
3. This portion of the quote was simply to put the issue in context, that Jay used the words "our Christian nation", which is the subject of the OP.

[glockmail]

......
Yeah. Below are the exact influences Christianity had on the Founders of this nation:<blockquote><b>Thomas Paine:</b>
<i>"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity."</i></blockquote>

You already admitted that Paine was not a Founder, than you claim him to be again. He was a damn atheist, like you. At least he had common sense.

[LOki]

You already admitted that Paine was not a Founder, than you claim him to be again.You lie. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=86322#post86322)


He was a damn atheist, like you. You lie again.


At least he had common sense.Truth.

[Pale Rider]

You haven't brought evidence for this yet, and you fail to do so below--it's just restating your convictions which we have been aware of since the first time you expressed them.

I did with my initial post, and subsequent posts, all of which you have totally ignored.

You've lost the debate. The only person here that believes the garbage you're dredging up is you. The rest of us know the truth. It's simple. It's written, and it's staring you in the face. You REFUSE to admit it because you're an atheist, and you'll fight the facts until your dying breath. But your fight is in vain. You will NEVER be able to rewrite history.

This country was founded on Christian principles by Christian people. There's no more simple truth than that.

[LOki]

I did with my initial post, and subsequent posts, all of which you have totally ignored.I have replied directly to your posts, you're just as full of shit as glockmail.


You've lost the debate.Not on the merits of evidence, but rather the intensity of your denial of reality.


The only person here that believes the garbage you're dredging up is you. The rest of us know the truth. It's simple. It's written, and it's staring you in the face.Fucking LOL!


You REFUSE to admit it because you're an atheist, and you'll fight the facts until your dying breath.You need to disseminate such lies because you cannot refute the argument I have presented. Double LOLZ!


But your fight is in vain. You will NEVER be able to rewrite history.I'm not the one posting lies in the place of history though.


This country was founded on Christian principles...Repeating this in an attempt to make it true is the exact revisionism that would make Joesph Goebbles proud. BRAVO! :clap:

[LOki]

1. Perhaps you could point out where John Jay's quote was made-up. This is bullshit claiming quotes are made-up.David Barton is the source for that quote, and he has admitted that he can't find it's source--no one else can either. It's confirmed bullshit.


2. Why not? You brought up non-founders, such as Paine.I never said Paine was not a Founder, you certainly suggested he wasn't.


3. This portion of the quote was simply to put the issue in context, that Jay used the words "our Christian nation", which is the subject of the OP.I had no idea that the sole point of the OP was to demonstrate that John Jay said "our Christian nation." I don't argue he said otherwise. My point is that his notions did not carry to the foundational document of our nation.

[glockmail]

You lie. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=86322#post86322)

... . Either you agree with that criteria or not. Not a signer = not a Founder. Paine was neither, but he was an atheist. :pee:

[glockmail]

[1]David Barton is the source for that quote, and he has admitted that he can't find it's source--no one else can either. It's confirmed bullshit.

[2]I never said Paine was not a Founder, you certainly suggested he wasn't.

[3]I had no idea that the sole point of the OP was to demonstrate that John Jay said "our Christian nation." I don't argue he said otherwise. My point is that his notions did not carry to the foundational document of our nation.

1. Prove it.
2. He was not a signer, therefore not a founder. He was an atheist, like you.
3. John Jay's quote supports the OP; it is not the basis for it. The basis is the DOI as well as the Constitution as stated previously.

[musicman]

No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

Prove this assertion, please. Outline Christian principle as you understand it.

[LOki]

1. Prove it.<a href="http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=126">Here you go.</a> Here's some more about <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Barton"><b>Dave Barton.</b></a>


2. He was not a signer, therefore not a founder. Then by your criteria, neither was Patrick Henry or Dave Barton. Why do you insist thier quotes are relevent?


He was an atheist, like you.Repeating this lie will not make it true.


3. John Jay's quote supports the OP; it is not the basis for it. The basis is the DOI as well as the Constitution as stated previously.According to your criteria, was John Jay a Founding Father? If not, what's your point in citing him?

[LOki]

Either you agree with that criteria or not. Not a signer = not a Founder. Paine was neither, but he was an atheist. :pee:I see I have managed to beat the piss out of the monkey again. I do not agree with your criteria, and I never said I did; but I have no problem keeping you honest by holding you to it.

[LOki]

Prove this assertion, please. Outline Christian principle as you understand it.Christians assert that Jesus is God, the Supreme Authority, and that no other may be regarded as such--this is a singly Christian principle.

Of course, you've already "proven" I know nothing about Christianity, so what's your point?

[musicman]

Christians assert that Jesus is God, the Supreme Authority, and that no other may be regarded as such--this is a singly Christian principle.

Of course, you've already "proven" I know nothing about Christianity, so what's your point?

You have advanced an assertion, LOki. Let's see...what was it? Oh yeah:


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

I am asking you to prove it. "A singly Christian principle" won't do. Stop wriggling. Be honest, once. Prove your assertion. Outline Christian principle as you understand it.

[Pale Rider]

Christians assert that Jesus is God, the Supreme Authority, and that no other may be regarded as such--this is a singly Christian principle.

Wrong. Jesus is the "son" of God.

Maybe this is why you fail to see that America was founded on Christian principles.

[LOki]

You have advanced an assertion, LOki. Let's see...what was it? Oh yeah:



I am asking you to prove it. "A singly Christian principle" won't do. Stop wriggling. Be honest, once. Prove your assertion. Outline Christian principle as you understand it.You can't "prove" a negative musicman--if there is a principle, singly identifiable to Christianity, that this nation was founded upon, produce it or admit that no such thing exists.

And a singly identifiable Christian principle is a princple held only by Christians that identifies them, and only them, as Christians--such as the belief that Jesus is God, the Supreme Authority, and that no other may be regarded as such.

[SpidermanTUba]

http://www.earlychristianamerica.com/index.html

Uhh, it doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that America's government was founded as Christian. In fact, the only mention of religion in the body of the Constitution is where it says that religion cannot be used as a test for public office.


No one needs to "make a case" that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation - because there is no evidence that it was.

[LOki]

Wrong. Jesus is the "son" of God.

Maybe this is why you fail to see that America was founded on Christian principles.According to these guys (http://christiananswers.net/home.html), Jesus Christ is most definitely God. (http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/ednk-jesusgodorman.html)

Apparently I'm not so wrong after all.

Heretic.:poke:

[musicman]

You can't "prove" a negative musicman--if there is a principle, singly identifiable to Christianity, that this nation was founded upon, produce it or admit that no such thing exists.

This is your assertion, LOki:


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

Prove it. Outline Christian principle as you understand it, and demonstrate why...


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

YOU advanced it. Defend it.

[LOki]

Prove it. Outline Christian principle as you understand it, and demonstrate why...A singly identifiable Christian principle is a princple held only by Christians that identifies them, and only them, as Christians--such as the belief that Jesus is God, the Supreme Authority, and that no other may be regarded as such.


YOU advanced it. Defend it.I submit the The Declaration of Independence, which has no mention of Jesus in it, and The Constitution which has no mention of Jesus or God in it, and every quote from the Authors of those documents, and other Founding Fathers, I've already submitted on behalf of my argument--now refute them.


And just to get the logic straight musicman, I don't have to prove that any other nation was founded on rational principles to prove that the United States was; I don't have to prove other nations were founded on Christian principles to prove the United States wasn't. I must only prove that the principles this nation was founded upon are rational principles; and if I can't, the very next best thing is to prove that the Founders intended to do so. To prove that this nation is not founded as a Christian nation, I need only to find those singularly Christain princples neccessary for the foundation of such a nation to be missing--like some constitutional recognition of the supremacy of Jesus, for instance. On the other hand, you, in order to demonstrate that this nation was founded as a Christian Nation upon Christian principles, must demonstrate that the actual principles this nation was founded upon are actually Christian principles, and also unique to Christianity--like some constitutional recognition of the supremacy of Jesus, for instance.

[musicman]

A singly identifiable Christian principle is a princple held only by Christians that identifies them, and only them, as Christians--such as the belief that Jesus is God, the Supreme Authority, and that no other may be regarded as such.

I submit the The Declaration of Independence, which has no mention of Jesus in it, and The Constitution which has no mention of Jesus or God in it, and every quote from the Authors of those documents, and other Founding Fathers, I've already submitted on behalf of my argument--now refute them.

Let's try this again, Mr. Wriggles. Here is your assertion:


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

Outline Christian principle as you understand it, and explain why this is so. YOU ADVANCED IT. DEFEND IT.

[LOki]

Outline Christian principle as you understand it, and explain why this is so. YOU ADVANCED IT. DEFEND IT.I have, and I have.

[musicman]

And just to get the logic straight musicman, I don't have to prove that any other nation was founded on rational principles to prove that the United States was; I don't have to prove other nations were founded on Christian principles to prove the United States wasn't. I must only prove that the principles this nation was founded upon are rational principles; and if I can't, the very next best thing is to prove that the Founders intended to do so. To prove that this nation is not founded as a Christian nation, I need only to find those singularly Christain princples neccessary for the foundation of such a nation to be missing--like some constitutional recognition of the supremacy of Jesus, for instance. On the other hand, you, in order to demonstrate that this nation was founded as a Christian Nation upon Christian principles, must demonstrate that the actual principles this nation was founded upon are actually Christian principles, and also unique to Christianity--like some constitutional recognition of the supremacy of Jesus, for instance.

This is your assertion:


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

Outline Christian principle as you understand it, and demonstrate why this is so. YOU ADVANCED IT. DEFEND IT.

[LOki]

Outline Christian principle as you understand it, and demonstrate why this is so. YOU ADVANCED IT. DEFEND IT.I have already, but if you need Christian principle to be painfully spelled out for you, try this on for size: <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=principle">A comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption</a> that is held by <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christians">one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ</a>, and <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=unambiguously">unambiguously</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/identifies">establishes the identity</a> of that person (or in the case of this debate: nation) to be Christian.

To prove that this nation is not founded as a Christian nation, I need only to find those singularly Christain princples neccessary for the foundation of such a nation to be missing--like some constitutional recognition of the supremacy of Jesus, for instance.

As proof, I submit the The Declaration of Independence, which has no mention of Jesus in it, and The Constitution which has no mention of Jesus or God in it, and every quote from the Authors of those documents, and other Founding Fathers, I've already submitted on behalf of my argument--now refute them.

[glockmail]

Uhh, it doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution that America's government was founded as Christian. In fact, the only mention of religion in the body of the Constitution is where it says that religion cannot be used as a test for public office.


No one needs to "make a case" that America wasn't founded as a Christian nation - because there is no evidence that it was. Great. Another liberal who doesn't bother to read. Try reading the 418 some odd posts about this and then get back to me. :pee:

[glockmail]

[1]<a href="http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=126">Here you go.</a> Here's some more about <a href="http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_Barton"><b>Dave Barton.</b></a>

[2]Then by your criteria, neither was Patrick Henry or Dave Barton. Why do you insist thier quotes are relevent?

[3]Repeating this lie will not make it true.

[2]According to your criteria, was John Jay a Founding Father? If not, what's your point in citing him?

From your source, emp mine:
The following quotations have been seen and heard in numerous books, periodicals, editorials, speeches, etc. In our research, we have not previously used a quote that was not documented to a source in a manner that would be acceptable in a scholarly work or a university text. However, we strongly believe that the debates surrounding the Founders are too important to apply solely an academic standard. Therefore, we unilaterally initiated within our own works a standard of documentation that would exceed the academic standard and instead would conform to the superior legal standard (i.e., relying solely on primary or original sources, using best evidence, rather than relying on the writings of attorneys, professors, or historians). Refreshing that these liberals freely admit that they have a double standard: one for themselves, and another for those they disagree with.
2. I quoted Henry and Jay because you quoted non-Founders. Both had more to do with the founding of this nation then your hero, the atheist Paine.
3. Which part is not true?

[LOki]

From your source, emp mine: Refreshing that these liberals freely admit that they have a double standard: one for themselves, and another for those they disagree with.And you'll note that they pulled their bullshit quote after they were motivated to do so by those who called them to the carpet on it. Don't be confused by my generosity to David Barton in pointing you to his ite, and don't be confuse by David Barton's generosity to himself as he retroactively applied these more stringent standards. Nowhere on that site did Barton demonstrate that the quote he attributes to Patrick Henry was anything but something that Partick Henry <i>might have</i> said.

2. I quoted Henry and Jay because you quoted non-Founders. Both had more to do with the founding of this nation then your hero, the atheist Paine.You have no valid justifcation for dismissing Thomas Paines contributions to the founding of this nation based on his lack of "foundership" if you don't dismiss others with lack of "foundership" by the same criteria.

You should also take note that by you very own criteria, Jesus is not a Founding Father of this nation either--and if we extend this dismissal of Thomas Paines writings on the same criteria you use, the words of Jesus don't apply to the founding of this nation either.


3. Which part is not true?Both parts.

[glockmail]

[1]And you'll note that they pulled their bullshit quote after they were motivated to do so by those who called them to the carpet on it. Don't be confused by my generosity to David Barton in pointing you to his ite, and don't be confuse by David Barton's generosity to himself as he retroactively applied these more stringent standards. Nowhere on that site did Barton demonstrate that the quote he attributes to Patrick Henry was anything but something that Partick Henry <i>might have</i> said.
[2]You have no valid justifcation for dismissing Thomas Paines contributions to the founding of this nation based on his lack of "foundership" if you don't dismiss others with lack of "foundership" by the same criteria.

[3]You should also take note that by you very own criteria, Jesus is not a Founding Father of this nation either--and if we extend this dismissal of Thomas Paines writings on the same criteria you use, the words of Jesus don't apply to the founding of this nation either.

[4]Both parts.

1. All that proves is that liberals can intimidate some. I wonder if they ,use the same tactics against those that they agree with?
2. Sure I do. Jay was the first chief justice of the Supreme Court, the President of the Continental Congress, and held numerous other political positions critical to this important period. Patrick Henry was a member of the Continental Congress and a Virginia Militia Leader. Paine was a writer and not much else. “After his death in New York City on June 8, 1809 the newspapers read: He had lived long, did some good and much harm, which time judged to be an unworthy epitaph.”
3. The words of Jesus were instrumental in the thinking of the Founders. I don’t think you could make a valid comparison with Paine.
4. Looks lie the Atheist Foundation disagrees with you. “Atheists honour [sic] Thomas Paine for his contributions to the concepts of liberty and equality of citizens before the law, and for his condemnation of the Bible and Christianity.” http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/thomaspaine.htm

[musicman]

I have already, but if you need Christian principle to be painfully spelled out for you, try this on for size: <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=principle">A comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption</a> that is held by <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/Christians">one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ</a>, and <a href="http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=unambiguously">unambiguously</a> <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/identifies">establishes the identity</a> of that person (or in the case of this debate: nation) to be Christian.

No - you're not listening. I did not ask you to DEFINE Christian principle; combining the definitions of "Christian", "principle", and "identity" scarcely adds up to:


Outline Christian principle as you understand it, and explain why this* is so.

*this, of course, being:


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

Surely, this means that you possess some primary level of understanding on the matter of Christian principle; otherwise, you'd never have risked making such a sweeping statement - right?

OH, WAIT FOLKS - HERE IT COMES - AT LONG LAST, WE'RE GOING TO CATCH A GLIMPSE OF "CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE, ACCORDING TO LOKI"!!! :


I need only to find those singularly Christain princples neccessary for the foundation of such a nation to be missing--like some constitutional recognition of the supremacy of Jesus, for instance.

The supremacy of Jesus over WHAT? Come on, LOki - dazzle us!


To prove that this nation is not founded as a Christian nation,

You need to choose your words more carefully. I have never said this is a Christian nation; in fact, I have declared unequivocally that it is NOT.


As proof, I submit the The Declaration of Independence, which has no mention of Jesus in it, and The Constitution which has no mention of Jesus or God in it, and every quote from the Authors of those documents, and other Founding Fathers, I've already submitted on behalf of my argument--now refute them.

As proof of what - that this is not a Christian nation? Nice job of sleuthing, there, Sherlock - I only said the same thing a couple of hundred posts ago. That this nation is not founded on Christian principle? How, in the name of all that is reasonable, would YOU know?

[LOki]

No - you're not listening. I did not ask you to DEFINE Christian principle; combining the definitions of "Christian", "principle", and "identity" scarcely adds up to:
Outline Christian principle as you understand it, and explain why this is so.Actually, I am listening; and actually my definition and example DOES <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/outline">indicate the principal features of</a> what a Christian principle is as I understand it--your patent denial of reality not withstanding.


Surely, this means that you possess some primary level of understanding on the matter of Christian principle; otherwise, you'd never have risked making such a sweeping statement - right?

OH, WAIT FOLKS - HERE IT COMES - AT LONG LAST, WE'RE GOING TO CATCH A GLIMPSE OF "CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE, ACCORDING TO LOKI"!!! :



The supremacy of Jesus over WHAT? Come on, LOki - dazzle us!You began this with <a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=101635#post101635">post 407.</a>

I answered you in <a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=101643#post101643">post 410.</a> I explained this agian to you in <a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=101697#post101697">post 417</a>, adding that I had already done this for you back in <a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=101511#post101511">post 396.</a>

You , of course ignored this in <a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=101707#post101707">post 420.</a>

In response I made this clear, as crystal clear as I could, in <a href="http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=101715#post101715">post 421.</a> And now, it seems I must do so again to appease your obtuse retardedness. The answer is musicman, "Jesus' supremacy over everything." There is no indication in our founding documents--particularly the Constitution which codifies this nation's foundational principles--that for the United States of America Jesus Christ reigns supreme over everything.


As proof of what - that this is not a Christian nation? It serves that purpose, but it also serves to demonstrate that no singly identifable Christian principle is asserted in the Founding documents of this nation, and that the Founders deliberately made them so.


That this nation is not founded on Christian principle? How, in the name of all that is reasonable, would YOU know? Back to this bullshit, unsubstantiated accusation. You are truly a pip.

[glockmail]

.....There is no indication in our founding documents--particularly the Constitution which codifies this nation's foundational principles--that for the United States of America Jesus Christ reigns supreme over everything......

This is now your standard? For the Founders, “Nature’s God entitle them”, "endowed by our Creator", and “secure the Blessings of Liberty" is sufficient. We're not a theocracy.

[musicman]

Actually, I am listening; and actually my definition and example DOES <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/outline">indicate the principal features of</a> what a* Christian principle is as I understand it--your patent denial of reality not withstanding. *emphasis mine-mm

You are being laughably, transparently dishonest here. I did not request - nor have you, initially and repeatedly, asserted - anything to do with a Christian principle - let alone a pathetically incomplete and therefore erroneous one. Let's review:


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

In response to this assertion, I made a reasonable, straightforward request:


Outline Christian principle as you understand it, and explain why this is so.

And now - wonder of wonders - we have your explanation! Contrary to all the past evidence of your dogged evasiveness - your slippery disingenuousness - you CAN, after all, give a straight answer to a straight question! Hallelujah!


The answer is musicman, "Jesus' supremacy over everything." There is no indication in our founding documents--particularly the Constitution which codifies this nation's foundational principles--that for the United States of America Jesus Christ reigns supreme over everything.

So, the fact that the U.S. Constitution does not read:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, where Jesus Christ reigns supreme over everything...

...is the basis for your assertion:


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

This is the level of forethought and respect for the subject matter you bring to your assertions. This is the weight we should give to your assertions in the future.

Thank you. That's all I wanted to know.

[glockmail]

.....This is the level of forethought and respect for the subject matter you bring to your assertions. This is the weight we should give to your assertions in the future.

.... . I gotta tell you, MM, LOki has seen better days. His latest attempt to twist logic is simply :lame2:

[LOki]

Actually, I am listening; and actually my definition and example DOES <a href="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/outline">indicate the principal features of</a> what a* Christian principle is as I understand it--your patent denial of reality not withstanding. *emphasis mine-mm
You are being laughably, transparently dishonest here. I did not request - nor have you, initially and repeatedly, asserted - anything to do with a Christian principle - let alone a pathetically incomplete and therefore erroneous one. Let's review:


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

In response to this assertion, I made a reasonable, straightforward request:


Outline Christian principle as you understand it, and explain why this is so.

And now - wonder of wonders - we have your explanation! Contrary to all the past evidence of your dogged evasiveness - your slippery disingenuousness - you CAN, after all, give a straight answer to a straight question! Hallelujah!


The answer is musicman, "Jesus' supremacy over everything." There is no indication in our founding documents--particularly the Constitution which codifies this nation's foundational principles--that for the United States of America Jesus Christ reigns supreme over everything.

So, the fact that the U.S. Constitution does not read:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, where Jesus Christ reigns supreme over everything...

...is the basis for your assertion:


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

This is the level of forethought and respect for the subject matter you bring to your assertions. This is the weight we should give to your assertions in the future.

Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. You are attempting to hang me for "transparent dishonesty", "dogged evasiveness", and "slippery disingenuousness" over your transparently dishonest, disingenuous parsing of "a"? Let's talk about dishonesty, disingenuousity, and evasiveness, musicman.

Let's talk about how you dishonestly, and disingenuously took what I clearly, and unambiguously provided as an example of a Christian princple, and presented it as an assertion from me that it is the whole body of Christian principles; that it is what Christian princple is, in order to evade admitting that I had met your challenge.

Despite having provided you a complete answer to your challenge,<blockquote><b>musicman:</b><i>"Outline Christian principle as you understand it, and explain why this is so."</i></blockquote>several times, you dishonestly and disingenuously pretended that I hadn't, so you could take a clarification on the example I presented, out of context to create a litte "AH HA!" moment for yourself, and evade making any valid rebuttal to the assertion I made. Instead you post this disingenuous assertion:
So, the fact that the U.S. Constitution does not read:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, where Jesus Christ reigns supreme over everything...

...is the basis for your assertion:


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.in a dishonest attempt to misrepresent my position.

If the Constitution read as in the example you provided, it would certainly prove my assertion wrong. The fact that the Constitution does not read that way is not the basis of my assertion; which is nothing really but a statement of observable fact--the absence of any reference in our founding documents to principles singly identifable as being Christian. If you assert such reference exists, point me to it and prove me wrong.

Throughout all this, you prove rather doggedly evasive regarding the presentation of any princple this nation was founded upon as being unambiuously Christian in nature. I suspect that you would like me to accept as Christian principles any principle that any one claiming to be Christian claims to hold. That won't happen, because Christians, like anyone else, are capable of claiming anything as theirs wether doing so is valid or not.

The fact that I refuse to accept your false accusations, logical fallacies, and errors of fact, as well as your dishonesty, disingenuousity, and evasiveness, as validations of your assertion that this nation was founded on Christian priniciples is no evidence what-so-ever that I am being dishonest, disingenuous, or evasive; and it certainly sheds no ill light upon the forethought and respect for the subject matter I bring to my assertions.

[musicman]

This is just sad.

Do I detect a cry for help here, LOki? Are you trying to ask for help in understanding Christian principle, so that you are never again caught so red-handed in foolishness and dishonesty?

I will not answer a scoffer to his own folly; if you genuinely seek truth, I will do my best, for the glory of God. But, as with any endeavor to overcome the sickness of the world, we absolutely cannot proceed from the mindset of denial. You must admit - freely, openly, and unequivocally - that, up until now, you've been talking out your ass.

Do we proceed?

[LOki]

Do I detect a cry for help here, LOki?No.


Are you trying to ask for help in understanding Christian principle,...If you have a perspective you'd like to share, I'm willing to entertain it.


...so that you are never again caught so red-handed in foolishness and dishonesty?Unsubstantiated accusation is just habitual with you, isn't it? There is nothing foolish or dishonest about my understanding of Christian principles.


I will not answer a scoffer to his own folly; if you genuinely seek truth, I will do my best, for the glory of God.I always seek the truth, I am just skeptical of the intentions and truthfulness of someone as demonstrably dishonest as yourself. I will not take you at your word on anything; you must substantiate your assertions with evidence and valid logic.


But, as with any endeavor to overcome the sickness of the world, we absolutely cannot proceed from the mindset of denial. You must admit - freely, openly, and unequivocally - that, up until now, you've been talking out your ass.You are most assuredly speaking only for yourself here--I highly recommend that you take your very own advice.


Do we proceed?At your leisure.

[musicman]

If you have a perspective you'd like to share, I'm willing to entertain it.


At your leisure.

I see that the desire is there. Good - cling to that; it's a beginning. But, I cannot help you as long as you imagine that you've done anything here but advance a baseless and indefensible assertion, rooted in stubborn ignorance. We've got to start clean.

[LOki]

But, I cannot be helped... as long as I imagine that I've done anything here but advance a baseless and indefensible assertion, rooted in stubborn ignorance.There. I fixed that for you. :thumb:

[musicman]

There. I fixed that for you. :thumb:

You are still caught up in the glorification of self - a symptom of which appears to be amnesia. At issue is YOUR assertion, remember?

Seeking self-glorification is part and parcel of our humanness, LOki. Certainly, part of me feels up to the task of batting around this Bible principle or that with you; the idea is pleasing to my temporal, earthbound mind.

But, when the matter involves imparting the truth of the Gospel, I cannot seek after my own glory. The rules are different. Maybe you're not ready to hear it now. Maybe you're not ready to hear it from me. And, that's perfectly fine. Keep seeking after the truth, LOki - with an earnest curiosity and a clean heart. It'll find you.

[glockmail]

There. I fixed that for you. :thumb::lame2: But par for the course, as you've resorted to forgery before to bolster your weak, losing arguments.

[LOki]

You are still caught up in the glorification of self - a symptom of which appears to be amnesia.You've convinced me, the evidence you've brought is weighty and difficult to refute--unsubstantiated accusation IS habitual for you.


At issue is YOUR assertion, remember?My assertion is only an appertenance; an observation of fact, in rebuttal to this issue musicman, remember (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=87499#post87499)?


Seeking self-glorification is part and parcel of our humanness, LOki.Thanks for sharing your humanness.


Certainly, part of me feels up to the task of batting around this Bible principle or that with you; the idea is pleasing to my temporal, earthbound mind.Feel free to do so, just don't expect me to be convinced by the dishonesty, disingenuousity, evasiveness, false accusations, logical fallacies, and errors of fact, that you've submitted in the place of verifiable evidence and valid logic, thus far.


But, when the matter involves imparting the truth of the Gospel, I cannot seek after my own glory.Then stop.


The rules are different.Only for those who find occasion to place pursuit of their self glorification above the persuit for truth--for the rest of us, the rules are always the same.


Maybe you're not ready to hear it now. Maybe you're not ready to hear it from me. And, that's perfectly fine.Maybe I have already heard it. Maybe you have illuminated your "truth" very well, but the conclusion to be drawn from it is not what you expected. What's not perfectly fine are your unsubstantiated demands that I'm so terribly wrong, prersented as if they were established facts.


Keep seeking after the truth, LOki - with an earnest curiosity and a clean heart.I have not failed to do so yet.


It'll find you.Spoken from a sanctimonious, self aggrandizing sense that your unsupported opinions on the truth are established facts based only upon your obtuse demands that they are, and an intense disdain for the significance of verifiable evidence and valid logic in your reasoning, and the reasoning of others.

[LOki]

:lame2: But par for the course, as you've resorted to forgery before to bolster your weak, losing arguments.Still telling lies about me in hopes that your weak, losing arguments will gain credibilty through hopeful character assassination. Extra:lame2:

[glockmail]

Still telling lies about me in hopes that your weak, losing arguments will gain credibilty through hopeful character assassination. Extra:lame2:
Are you claiming that this is only the first time that you have doctored someone else's quoute?:laugh2:

[LOki]

One of these days, one of my lies, or misleading suggestions is going to be believed, and then I'll WIN! Maybe it will happen today!:laugh2:Nope. ;)

[glockmail]

Nope. ;)
VERY BAD FORM TO MAKE UP QUOTES ATTRIBUTED TO OTHERS. NEG REP FOR THAT.:slap::slap::slap::slap:

[LOki]

I CANNOT DISTINGUISH CARICATURE (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/forge)--I THINK IT'S FORGERY (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/caricature). VERY BAD FORM TO HIGHLIGHT MY STUPIDITY AND DISHONESTY. NEG REP FOR THAT.:slap::slap::slap::slap:Not as bad form as telling lies about others, glockmail. These days, I'll take your neg-rep as validation that I'm spot on about you.

[musicman]

O.K., Loki - stay in the mud, if that's what you have to do. But, don't ever try to fling this assertion again...


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

..., not around here, anyway. Your alligator mouth overloaded your hummingbird ass on this one; you know it - I know it - and anyone at DP who is not willfully blind and deaf knows it. If you can't back it up, don't say it.

[LOki]

O.K., Loki - stay in the mud, if that's what you have to do. But, don't ever try to fling this assertion again...
No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on...., not around here, anyway. Your alligator mouth overloaded your hummingbird ass on this one; you know it - I know it - and anyone at DP who is not willfully blind and deaf knows it. If you can't back it up, don't say it.I have backed my assertion, and given you ample opportunity to provide a singly identifiable Christian principle that this nation was founded on. Throughout all of this, you have produced a goose egg, zero, nada, nothing. Instead, you have engaged in evasiveness, disingenuousity, dishonesty, and false accusations; and offered errors of fact and logcal fallacy to rebut my assertion and demonstrate that that this nation was founded on Christian priniciples.

Until you bring up a singly identifiable Christian principle that this nation was founded on, the assertion that no singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on, will stand.

[musicman]

I have backed my assertion

No, you haven't. Outline Christian principle as you understand it, and explain why this...


no singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on

...is so. If you cannot demonstrate as much as the grasp of the subject matter that is possessed by any Christian third-grader, you ought to retract your statement. Anyone with a sense of honor would.

[glockmail]

.....

Until you bring up a singly identifiable Christian principle ......WAS THE UNITED STATES FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, many authors have debated whether or not the United States of America was founded as a Christian nation. I wish to provide a few historical quotes from our Founding Era that lend credence to the supposition that we indeed were founded as a Christian nation.

Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution, but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution. For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence…"

Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me.

Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?"

John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."

Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.

The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England). As early as 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.

Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.

John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.

This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation".

In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.'

It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of Church and State", people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution.

It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion.

When we read articles such as "What's God got to do with it?" (Primack, 5/4) and "The wall between state and church must not be breached" (Tager, 5/7) it just reaffirms how little, even intelligent people, understand about the founding of our great Republic. To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the facts of history.

Tex Browning

[LOki]

WAS THE UNITED STATES FOUNDED AS A CHRISTIAN NATION?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Granted, God is not mentioned in the Constitution,...Punked by your own source. Argument over.


...but He is mentioned in every major document leading up to the final wording of the Constitution.Yet not one of these other documents is the constitution, the founding document that this nation is actually founded on. Furthermore this sidesteps the issue of the alleged Christian principles this nation was founded upon, to argue a point that no one is disputing; most of the Founding Fathers considered themselves Christians.


For example, Connecticut is still known as the "Constitution State" because its colonial constitution was used as a model for the United States Constitution. Its first words were: "For as much as it has pleased the almighty God by the wise disposition of His Divine Providence…" "Connecticut's official nickname, adopted in 1959, is "The Constitution State," based on its colonial constitution of 1638–39." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connecticut) And regardless of the first words of Connecticut's first constituttion, in 1638, you're certainly not talking about the Constitution of the United States. Also, despite the wishful thinking of revisionists, the actual model for the US Constitution was the Virginia Plan authored by James Madison, who also wrote this:<blockquote><b>James Madison:</b>
<i>"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."</i></blockquote>


Most of the fifty-five Founding Fathers who worked on the Constitution were members of orthodox Christian churches and many were even evangelical Christians. The first official act in the First Continental Congress was to open in Christian prayer, which ended in these words: "...the merits of Jesus Christ, Thy Son, our Savior. Amen". Sounds Christian to me.Again, no-one is arguing that most of the Founding Fathers considered themselves Christians, and The Continental Congress is not the US Congress which was established when this nation was founded under the US Constitution which, as already has been agreed upon, makes no mention of God or Jesus at all.


Ben Franklin, at the Constitutional Convention, said: "...God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?" <blockquote><b>Benjamin Franklin:</b><i>
"When religion is good, it will take care of itself. When it is not able to take care of itself, and God does not see fit to take care of it, so that it has to appeal to the civil power for support, it is evidence to my mind that its cause is a bad one."</i></blockquote>Theocrats, of course, disagree and demand such support. Ben Franklin was a Deist, so this reference to God is not a reference to Jesus, and this quote is not an endorsement of any Chrisitan principle in the foundation of this Nation. Though expressing gratitude for God's blessing in the formation of this nation, it none the less is no endoresemnt of for founding this nation on any religion or on principles particular to Christianity--at least not the Christianity he was familiar with.<blockquote><b>Benjamin Franklin:</b><i>
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. They found it wrong in Bishops, but fell into the practice themselves both there (England) and in New England."</i></blockquote>


John Adams stated so eloquently during this period of time that; "The general principles on which the fathers achieved Independence were ... the general principles of Christianity ... I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that the general principles of Christianity are as etemal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God."The "general principles of Christianity", not those particular to Christianity.<blockquote><b>John Adams:</b><i>
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity. Nowhere in the Gospels do we find a precept for Creeds, Confessions, Oaths, Doctrines, and whole carloads of other foolish trumpery that we find in Christianity."</i></blockquote>These "general principles" are rational principles that rational men of every denomination claim as theirs.<blockquote><b>John Adams:</b><i>
"...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."</i></blockquote><blockquote><b>John Adams:</b>
<i>"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; <b>it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.</b>"</i></blockquote>
Later, John Quincy Adams answered the question as to why, next to Christmas, was the Fourth of July this most joyous and venerated day in the United States. He answered: "...Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer’s mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity?" Sounds like the founding of a Christian nation to me. John Quincy Adams went on to say that the biggest victory won in the American Revolution was that Christian principles and civil government would be tied together In what he called an "indissoluble" bond. This appears to be more of David Barton's revisionist bullshit. ("http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/misq5.htm) Here's something John Q. Adams actually said:<blockquote><b>John Quincy Adams:</b>
<i>"Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak; and that it is doing God's service when it is violating all his laws."</i></blockquote>
The Founding Fathers understood that religion was inextricably part of our nation and government. The practice of the Christian religion in our government was not only welcomed but encouraged.Really?<blockquote><b>James Madison:</b>
<i>"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"</i></blockquote>
The intent of the First Amendment was well understood during the founding of our country. The First Amendment was not to keep religion out of government. It was to keep Government from establishing a 'National Denomination" (like the Church of England).Let's see what the principle author of the 1st Amendment had to say:<blockquote><b>James Madison:</b>
<i>"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity."</i></blockquote>AND<blockquote><b>James Madison:</b>
<i>"Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."</i></blockquote>So much for your revisionist ideas about the intent of the 1st Amendment.

As early as 1799 a court declared: "By our form of government the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." LOL. You're going to now cite some court? When the 9th Distric Court belts out some bullshit you're not going to declare that bullshit impeachable, just as you're trying to suggest that some court's statement back in 1799 is unimpeachable? Here's the real newsflash, the exact reason that all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing is explained by the author of the 1st Amendment when he said:<blockquote><b>James Madison:</b>
<i>"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?"</i></blockquote>It is due to the patently un-Christian principle of tolerance for other religions that "...all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."

Even in the letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut (from which we derive the term "separation of Church and State") he made it quite clear that the wall of separation was to insure that Government would never interfere with religious activities because religious freedom came from God, not from Government.Jeffersn's letter to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut does not state that religious freedom comes from God, nor does it suggest a "one-way" wall of separation of church and state. Look for yourself:<blockquote><b>Thomas Jefferson to the Baptists of Danbury Connecticut:</b>
<i>"The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."</i></blockquote>The wall of separation is CLEARLY meant to protect "the rights of conscience" from religious tyrrany.

Even George Washington who certainly knew the intent of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, since he presided over their formation, said in his "Farewell Address": "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Sure doesn't sound like Washington was trying to separate religion and politics.Washington also said:<blockquote><b>George Washington:</b>
<i>"The tribute of thanksgiving which you offer to the gracious Father of lights, for his inspiration of our public councils with wisdom and firmness to complete the national Constitution, is worthy of men who, devoted to the pious purposes of religion, desire their accomplishment by such means as advance the temporal happiness of mankind. And here, I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe, that <b>the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little Political attention. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation respecting religion from the Magna Charta of our country.</b>"</i></blockquote>
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, and one of the three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution declared:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is their duty-as well as privilege and interest- of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Still sounds like the Founding Fathers knew this was a Christian nation.This private opinion, expressed in a private letter, of Jay's appears to be was wish for Christian nation, yet our nation's primary founding document--the US Constitution--flatly and specifically rejects the notion that religion should be a qualifying criteria for holding any public office or trust in the Nation. John Jay may have wanted only Christian rulers, but he achieved no foundational accomodation for this theocratic wish in the foundational document of this nation.

This view, that we were a Christian nation, was hold for almost 150 years until the Everson v. Board of Education ruling in 1947. Before that momentous ruling, even the Supreme Court knew that we were a Christian nation. In 1892 the Court stated:

"No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national, because this is a religious people...This is a Christian nation." There it is again! From the Supreme Court of the United States. This court went on to cite 87 precedents (prior actions, words, and rulings) to conclude that this was a "Christian nation". As previously demonstrated, "[t]his view, that we were a Christian nation," was aborted early on at the foundation of the nation. The ruling in <i>Church of the Holy Trinity v. United States</i>, 143 U.S. 226 (1892), did not conclude, in a holding of law, that this is a Christian nation. The Christian nature of religions held by U.S. citizens was asserted as a history lesson in an obiter dictum preseted by Justice Brewer, in a case regarding the application of a <i>labor and immigration law</i>--the religiousity of this nation was not even the subject of the case. The personal opinions of Justice Brewer, a century after the fact, do not invalidate the intentions and clear language of the Founding Fathers as expressed in previously supplied quotes. Yet, despite his personal opinions, he manages to assert facts that you fail to accept:<blockquote><b>Justice David J. Brewer:</b>
<i>"But in what sense can it be called a Christian nation? Not in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or that people are in any matter compelled to support it. On the contrary, the Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all of its citizens are either in fact or name Christian. On the contrary, all religions have free scope within our borders. Numbers of our people profess other religions, and many reject all. Nor is it Christian in the sense that a profession of Christianity is a condition of holding office or otherwise engaging in public service, or essential to recognition either politically or socially. <b>In fact, the government as a legal organization is independent of all religions.</b>"</i></blockquote>How about them apples?

In 1854, the House Judiciary Committee said: "in this age, there is no substitute for Christianity...That was the religion of the founders of the republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.'So what? This confirms an assertion no-one has disagreed with, and fails to assert that the nation owes it's founding to any principles peculiar to Christianity.

It should be noted here that even as late as 1958 a dissenting judge warned in Baer v. Kolmorgen that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of Church and State", people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. Wishing the 1st Amendment to go away will not make it go away.

It has been demonstrated in their own words: Ben Franklin, George Washington and John Adams, to the House of Representatives and the Supreme Court, how our founding fathers felt about the mix of politics and religion.<blockquote><b>Benjamin Franklin:</b>
<i>When a religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and, when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.</i></blockquote><blockquote><b>George Washington:</b>
<i>"...the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little Political attention. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation respecting religion from the Magna Charta of our country."</i></blockquote>
<blockquote><b>John Adams:</b>
<i>"The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?"</i></blockquote>Yep.

When we read articles such as "What's God got to do with it?" (Primack, 5/4) and "The wall between state and church must not be breached" (Tager, 5/7) it just reaffirms how little, even intelligent people, understand about the founding of our great Republic. To say that this nation was not founded as a Christian nation or that the Constitution was not founded on Christian principles is totally at odds with the facts of history.

Tex Browning<blockquote><b>John Adams and the unanimous 5th Senate:</b>
<i>"...the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;..."</i></blockquote>

[LOki]

No, you haven't. Outline Christian principle as you understand it, and explain why this...
no singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on
...is so. If you cannot demonstrate as much as the grasp of the subject matter that is possessed by any Christian third-grader, you ought to retract your statement. Anyone with a sense of honor would.My sense of honor does not include the evasiveness, disingenuousity, dishonesty, and false accusations that yours does.

I have indeed outlined Christian principle as I understand it, despite your repeated evasive, dishonest, and disingenuous denials that I have. Then presenting the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States as the documents that describe and codify the principles upon which this nation was founded, I have concluded that due to the absence of any singly identifable Christian principle in the documents founding this nation, no singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on. For example: The principle of governement by the consent of the governed is not a Christian principle, rights being intrinsic to us via our creation by who/whatever is not a particularly Christian principle, limited powers of the governement is no principle particular to Christianity, and the freedom of one's religion, other than Christianity, is a patently un-Christian principle. There might still be a uniquely Christian founding principle in there I'm missing musicman, and the invitiation is still open to you, to point one out.

[glockmail]

Punked by your own source. Argument over..... Sure Al Gore.


1776: Signing of the Declaration of Independence. Serves as notice of “breach of covenant” to King George and Parliament and stipulates the reasons for the dissolution of the covenant between England and her American colonies. It was based upon the Mecklenburg Declaration and Fairfax County Resolves from which Thomas Jefferson drew most of the tenets to the document as well as its Reformed theological positions. Serving to fairly and judicially reprove the King and Parliament, the Declaration was viewed as a necessary document, in the theology of the old Puritanism of which, Samuel Adams, was such an adherent. He is also called the “Father of the American War for Independence.”

[musicman]

I have indeed outlined Christian principle as I understand it,

And therein lies the problem: "as [you] understand it" is NOT AT ALL.


Then presenting the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States as the documents that describe and codify the principles upon which this nation was founded, I have concluded that due to the absence of any singly identifable Christian principle in the documents founding this nation, no singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.

What you mean is, no singly Christian principle that is identifiable by YOU. But, then, we've established that your concept of an identifiable Christian principle in any of our founding documents would include some mention of the supremacy of Jesus. Would you mind telling me how I'm supposed to argue with someone I have to educate first?


For example: The principle of governement by the consent of the governed is not a Christian principle,

I think you mean, "not an exclusively Christian principle". I never said it was.


rights being intrinsic to us via our creation by who/whatever is not a particularly Christian principle,

Provide examples of other governmental systems predicated upon this principle, please - particularly, those uninformed by Christianity. And, let's tread carefully around the term, "rights", as well. Treat like cases alike.


limited powers of the governement is no principle particular to Christianity,

Ah, but the honest man, sincerely seeking after the truth, must pose the questions, "limited in which respects, and to what degree?" Will you at least concede that the U.S. Constitution is a unique example of limited government - particularly in its strict, specific prohibitions against central government interference in the matters of religion (Amendment I), the right to keep and bear arms (Amendment II), and ANY OTHER MATTER NOT SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED IT BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY SAID CONSTITUTION TO THE STATES (Amendment X)?

This is not merely limited government, LOki - this is government of which the absolute WORST is expected, and planned against. This is government behind an electrified, razor-wire fence, patrolled by ill-humored Doberman pinschers and pissed-off Hell's Angels. The worldview that created this system was informed by an intense, deeply-held pessimism regarding man's nature - and the nature of the governments he devises. That this theist and that atheist were numbered among the founders of this nation does not convince me that man was able to arrive at this daunting conclusion through pure rationality; the evidence of human history itself strains such a belief past the breaking point.

All of which brings us to Christian principle. What is the common thread that runs through all denominations of Christianity? The simple answer is, of course, Jesus Christ. But, let's dig a little deeper. What does the fact that Jesus came to redeem us suggest to you? The answer is that we require redemption. Man is utterly corrupt by his nature; NOTHING he can do will ever make him fit to stand in the sight of almighty God - not the holiest of holy men, not the mightiest of kings, not Mother Teresa. Our innate depravity is inescapable - it is no respecter of persons - we're all in the same boat. None of us are blue-bloods - none of us has the right to force our personal notions of right and wrong, outside the rule of civilized law, upon anybody else - none of us is intrinsically any better than anyone else. Without belief on Jesus Christ, we are all equally lost.

What sort of governmental system do YOU think men informed by such principles would devise? Can you demonstrate its like anywhere else - besides the U.S. Constitution - in human history?


and the freedom of one's religion, other than Christianity, is a patently un-Christian principle.

Who's coercing YOU, LOki?


There might still be a uniquely Christian founding principle in there I'm missing musicman, and the invitiation is still open to you, to point one out.

I've tried to scratch the surface here. You could probably swing a cat and hit five Christians more knowledgeable than myself. But, I'm happy to discuss any aspect of this topic you'd like, to the best of my ability.

[Pale Rider]

musicman... you are an OAK to be still arguing with this moron loki. The fact that the founding of this country is steeped in Christianity has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in this thread, and only a complete liar and blowhard can continue to deny it. We wouldn't put our hand on the Bible to "swear in" before testifying in court if we weren't a Christian nation. We wouldn't have "In God We Trust" on our money, and plastered all over practically every government building if we weren't a Christian nation. Our founding fathers believed we NEEDED God, and that is ABUNDANTLY clear. It's simply disingenuous to deny it.

This loki has done his level best to spin, twist, distort, deflect, deny, and lie about this issue, all for one reason. He does NOT believe in God himself, and the proof of this country being founded primarily as a Christian nation could be a baseball bat upside his head and he could be knocked unconscious by it. But he'd still try and convince you and I that he simply "passed out." It's ridiculous and pathetic.

[glockmail]

....This loki has done his level best to spin, twist, distort, deflect, deny, and lie about this issue, all for one reason. He does NOT believe in God himself, and the proof of this country being founded primarily as a Christian nation could be a baseball bat upside his head, and he could be knocked unconscious by it, but he'd still try and convince you and I that he simply "passed out." It's ridiculous and pathetic.

Well said. :clap:

[LOki]

I have indeed outlined Christian principle as I understand it,And therein lies the problem: "as [you] understand it" is NOT AT ALL.I am tired of this repeated and unsubstantiated accusation of yours. Let's just look at what I understand, and remind ourselves about where you made up your bullshit accusation about me:<blockquote>
The author of creation was not specified--they certainly did not specify Jesus Christ as the founders of a Christian nation certainly must.
So, in "Christianity According to LOki", Jesus Christ is the author of creation? How on earth can you hope to argue that "no singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on" - when at least half the requisite knowledge for making such a statement is BLANK, EMPTY SPACE??? Don't you see that your pitiable ignorance of Christianity BANKRUPTS YOUR ARGUMENT???
For Christians, the fact that Jesus Christ is the author of creation is not in dispute.
But, here is where you finally die:

It is not a princple of, or particular to Christianity, that government should not dictate religion.This is an extraordinary assessment of Christian principle - emanating, as it does, from a desperately flailing child who has - in the same post - demonstrated his understanding of Christianity thus:
For Christians, the fact that Jesus Christ is the author of creation is not in dispute.This discussion could not have had a better outcome if I'd scripted it myself. Thank you so very much.
Are you suggesting that Christians assert that Jesus is not God? If so, you have no fucking business claiming that I have no concept of what Christianity is.
<a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/ednk-jesusgodorman.html"><b>"Jesus Christ is most definitely God. He created Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, in his image. He is the Creator of the universe."</b></a> It appears that I am absolutely correct in my assertion that for Christians, the fact that Jesus Christ is the author of creation is not in dispute. As far as that assertion is concerned, my understanding of Christianity is rather sound, and the argument made is far from bankrupt, but rather solidly rooted in fact. You accusation, on the other hand, is "BLANK, EMPTY SPACE" and "your pitiable ignorance of Christianity BANKRUPTS YOUR ARGUMENT".


Moreover, the bedrock principle of Christianity is that no man can be coerced into salvation; he must come of his own free will.
A complete denial of everything in the Bible. You should read it before you post such nonsense. The bedrock principle of Chrisianity is that salvation is submitting to coercion.
Show me.
Open your Bible, and look.
You disappoint me, LOki. You know nothing of God, yet you talk tripe about the Gospel.

AND


WHERE IS THE COERCION, LOki? When do these beliefs take on the power of human governance?
Talk about being deliberately obtuse. If you're asking me where the <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion"><b>COERCION</b></a> is in the Bible, I'm going to ask you to read it, and then explain to me how the Bible asserts something other than Jesus' threat to eternally damn anyone who does not submit to His will, and how that threat cannot be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coercion"><b>COERCION</b></a>.
If you had actually bothered to read your Bible, musicman, you might have run across this little bit of a threat, which is just part of a recurrent theme:<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Deu/Deu028.html#14">Deuteronomy 28:14-68:</a></b>
<i>" Deu 28:14 And thou shalt not go aside from any of the words which I command thee this day, [to] the right hand, or [to] the left, to go after other gods to serve them.

Deu 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee:

Deu 28:16 Cursed [shalt] thou in the city, and cursed [shalt] thou [be] in the field.

Deu 28:17 Cursed [shall be] thy basket and thy store.

Deu 28:18 Cursed [shall be] the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

Deu 28:19 Cursed [shalt] thou [be] when thou comest in, and cursed [shalt] thou [be] when thou goest out.

Deu 28:20 <b>The LORD shall</b> send upon thee cursing, vexation, and rebuke, in all that thou settest thine hand unto for to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the wickedness of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken me.

Deu 28:21 <b>The LORD shall</b> make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until he have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest to possess it.

Deu 28:22 <b>The LORD shall</b> smite thee with a consumption, and with a fever, and with an inflammation, and with an extreme burning, and with the sword, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.

Deu 28:23 And thy heaven that [is] over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee [shall be] iron.

Deu 28:24 <b>The LORD shall</b> make the rain of thy land powder and dust: from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

Deu 28:25 <b>The LORD shall</b> cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies: thou shalt go out one way against them, and flee seven ways before them: and shalt be removed into all the kingdoms of the earth.

Deu 28:26 And thy carcase shall be meat unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and no man shall fray [them] away.

Deu 28:27 <b>The LORD will</b> smite thee with the botch of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.

Deu 28:28 <b>The LORD shall</b> smite thee with madness, and blindness, and astonishment of heart:

Deu 28:29 And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not prosper in thy ways: and thou shalt be only oppressed and spoiled evermore, and no man shall save [thee].

Deu 28:30 Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her: thou shalt build an house, and thou shalt not dwell therein: thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not gather the grapes thereof.

Deu 28:31 Thine ox [shall be] slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof: thine ass [shall be] violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee: thy sheep [shall be] given unto thine enemies, and thou shalt have none to rescue [them].

Deu 28:32 Thy sons and thy daughters [shall be] given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail [with longing] for them all the day long: and [there shall be] no might in thine hand.

Deu 28:33 The fruit of thy land, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed alway:

Deu 28:34 So that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.

Deu 28:35 <b>The LORD shall</b> smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore botch that cannot be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the top of thy head.

Deu 28:36 <b>The LORD shall</b> bring thee, and thy king which thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation which neither thou nor thy fathers have known; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.

Deu 28:37 And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all nations whither the LORD shall lead thee.

Deu 28:38 Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather [but] little in; for the locust shall consume it.

Deu 28:39 Thou shalt plant vineyards, and dress [them], but shalt neither drink [of] the wine, nor gather [the grapes]; for the worms shall eat them.

Deu 28:40 Thou shalt have olive trees throughout all thy coasts, but thou shalt not anoint [thyself] with the oil; for thine olive shall cast [his fruit].

Deu 28:41 Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but thou shalt not enjoy them; for they shall go into captivity.

Deu 28:42 All thy trees and fruit of thy land shall the locust consume.

Deu 28:43 The stranger that [is] within thee shall get up above thee very high; and thou shalt come down very low.

Deu 28:44 He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.

Deu 28:45 Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee:

Deu 28:46 And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever.

Deu 28:47 Because thou servedst not the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, for the abundance of all [things];

Deu 28:48 Therefore shalt thou serve thine enemies which the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all [things]: and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.

Deu 28:49 <b>The LORD shall</b> bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, [as swift] as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;

Deu 28:50 A nation of fierce countenance, which shall not regard the person of the old, nor shew favour to the young:

Deu 28:51 And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy land, until thou be destroyed: which [also] shall not leave thee [either] corn, wine, or oil, [or] the increase of thy kine, or flocks of thy sheep, until he have destroyed thee.

Deu 28:52 And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fenced walls come down, wherein thou trustedst, throughout all thy land: and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.

Deu 28:53 And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters, which the LORD thy God hath given thee, in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee:

Deu 28:54 [So that] the man [that is] tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil toward his brother, and toward the wife of his bosom, and toward the remnant of his children which he shall leave:

Deu 28:55 So that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat: because he hath nothing left him in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee in all thy gates.

Deu 28:56 The tender and delicate woman among you, which would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil toward the husband of her bosom, and toward her son, and toward her daughter,

Deu 28:57 And toward her young one that cometh out from between her feet, and toward her children which she shall bear: for she shall eat them for want of all [things] secretly in the siege and straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall distress thee in thy gates.

Deu 28:58 If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and fearful name, THE LORD THY GOD;

Deu 28:59 Then <b>the LORD will</b> make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, [even] great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.

Deu 28:60 Moreover he will bring upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast afraid of; and they shall cleave unto thee.

Deu 28:61 Also every sickness, and every plague, which [is] not written in the book of this law, them <b>will the LORD bring</b> upon thee, until thou be destroyed.

Deu 28:62 And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the LORD thy God.

Deu 28:63 And it shall come to pass, [that] as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so <b>the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you,</b> and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.

Deu 28:64 And <b>the LORD shall</b> scatter thee among all people, from the one end of the earth even unto the other; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which neither thou nor thy fathers have known, [even] wood and stone.

Deu 28:65 And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind:

Deu 28:66 And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life:

Deu 28:67 In the morning thou shalt say, Would God it were even! and at even thou shalt say, Would God it were morning! for the fear of thine heart wherewith thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.

Deu 28:68 And <b>the LORD shall</b> bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy [you]."</i></blockquote>These threats, musicman, apply to ALL of Jesus' commandments, including:<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Deu/Deu005.html#7">Deuteronomy 5:7:</a></b>
<i>"Thou shalt have none other gods before me."</i></blockquote>AND<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Deu/Deu030.html#15">Deuteronomy 30:16-18:</a></b>
<i>"In that <b>I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God,</b> to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. <b>But if thine heart turn away, so that thou wilt not hear, but shalt be drawn away, and worship other gods, and serve them; I denounce unto you this day, that ye shall surely perish,</b> [and that] ye shall not prolong [your] days upon the land, whither thou passest over Jordan to go to possess it."</i></blockquote>For Christians, failing to accept Jesus as God and Savior is a sin, and <a href="http://www.bible-study.cocareers.com/ot/sin.htm"><i>"sin is disobedience to God’s word."</i></a> Jesus has a response for sin:<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Sin/Sin_004.htm">From a Christian:</a></b>
<i>"God’s retribution for sin is pain."</i></blockquote>AND<blockquote><a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Rom/Rom006.html#23"><b>Romans 6:23:</b></a>
<i>"For the wages of <a href="http://www.carm.org/seek/sin.htm">sin</a> [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."</i></blockquote>If you refuse to submit to the will of Jesus, He has promised to do great harm to you--unto eternal death. That <i><b>IS</b></i> <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion"><b>COERCION</b></a>, musicman; plain and simple. Your denial of this is a patent denial of Scripture, and the nature of coercion, making you an unfit judge of others regarding their understanding of Cristianity.


My point is, no government can be said to proceed from the assumption of man's flawed nature if said government imagines itself the guarantor of rights and the answer to all problems.
Are you saying that all other governments assert themselves as the guarantor of rights, and the answer to all problems? I don't think any governments do, or ever have--but certain religions make very, very similar claims for themselves.
Take for example every instance where Christians assert that embracing Christ makes them better people, and that the strict, universal, and inerrant following of the teachings of Christ would put an end to all problems.
It occurs to me that I'm debating Christian principle as it applies to human governance with someone who understands very little of humans or governance - and nothing at all of Christianity, save for his fear and loathing of it.I am at least clear on the verifiable fact that for Christians, <a href="http://www.christiananswers.net/kids/ednk-jesusgodorman.html"><b>Jesus Christ is the author of creation.</b></a> It's a fundamental fact (perhaps the MOST FUNDAMENTAL FACT) of Christianity that you are apparently unaware of. Perhaps you ought to reconsider your idiotic notions regarding who knows what about Christianity. While you're doing so, consider also how well these Christians confirm my assertion above as they make the following claims:<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.allaboutreligion.org/beliefs-of-christianity-faq.htm">AllAboutReligion.org:</a></b>
<i>"The beliefs of Christianity state the resurrection of the saved and the lost, the one to everlasting life and the other to <b>everlasting damnation.</b> Then Jesus will establish His eternal kingdom."</i></blockquote><blockquote><b><a href="http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0968.htm">C. H. SPURGEON:</a></b>
<i>"Many secondary causes tend to sustain spiritual life; but the primary cause, the first and foremost, is because Jesus Christ lives. "All my fresh springs are in thee." While Jesus lives, he sends the Spirit; the Spirit being sent, we pray; our prayer becomes the evidence of our spiritual life. "But are not good works essential to the maintenance of the spiritual life?" Certainly, if there be no good works, we have no evidence of spiritual life. In its season the tree must bring forth its fruit and its leaves; if there be no outward sign we suspect that there is no motion of the sap within. Still, to the tree the fruit is not the cause of life, but the result of it, and to the life of the Christian, good works bear the same relationship, they are its outgrowth, not its root."</i></blockquote><blockquote><b><a href="http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/way/benefits.shtml">Some Orthodox Christians:</a></b>
<i>"Through His teachings Jesus Christ scattered the darkness of ignorance and all possible error and enlightened the world with the light of the true faith. Now anyone who desires it can come to know the will of God and attain eternal life."</i></blockquote>Despite all your frothy claims about my lack of knowledge of Christians and Christianity, it appears that I am, once again, completely correct in my assertions.</blockquote>It's time you put your <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Exd/Exd020.html#16">unsubstantiated accusations</a> to rest.



Then presenting the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution of the United States as the documents that describe and codify the principles upon which this nation was founded, I have concluded that due to the absence of any singly identifable Christian principle in the documents founding this nation, no singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on.What you mean is, no singly Christian principle that is identifiable by YOU. But, then, we've established that your concept of an identifiable Christian principle in any of our founding documents would include some mention of the supremacy of Jesus. Would you mind telling me how I'm supposed to argue with someone I have to educate first?You are clearly in no position to be educating me about Chrisitans, or Christianity.


I think you mean, "not an exclusively Christian principle". I never said it was.No. what I mean by "The principle of governement by the consent of the governed is not a Christian principle" is exactly that; government by the consent of the governed IS NOT a Christian principle--the Christian principle of government disregards the consent of the governed, and is established instead by the supreme authority of Jesus; He is, after all, The King of Kings, and we did not elect Him, nor may we elect him out of office in four years--He rules without, and regardless of our consent.



rights being intrinsic to us via our creation by who/whatever is not a particularly Christian principle,Provide examples of other governmental systems predicated upon this principle, please - particularly, those uninformed by Christianity. And, let's tread carefully around the term, "rights", as well. Treat like cases alike.Other governments are not relevent to my argument here. I do not have to prove that other governments embraced intrinsic rights to demonstrate that intrinsic rights are not a particularly Christian principle. The fact, that other contemporary governments were founded upon Christian principles, and those governments DID NOT embrace intrinsic rights, suggests that intrinsic rights is not, in fact, a Christian principle of governance. But it only suggests. The proof that rights being intrinsic to us via our creation is not <i>particularly</i> Christian can be easily demonstrated by the fact that Christianity, Judeaism, and Islam share exactly the same creation story, and for all of them rights come from the exact same creation--I'll bet there are others who subscribe to yet different religions who would also assert that "rights" are intrinsic to the humans created by their respective gods.



limited powers of the governement is no principle particular to Christianity,Ah, but the honest man, sincerely seeking after the truth, must pose the questions, "limited in which respects, and to what degree?" Will you at least concede that the U.S. Constitution is a unique example of limited government - particularly in its strict, specific prohibitions against central government interference in the matters of religion (Amendment I), the right to keep and bear arms (Amendment II), and ANY OTHER MATTER NOT SPECIFICALLY ASSIGNED IT BY THE CONSTITUTION, NOR PROHIBITED BY SAID CONSTITUTION TO THE STATES (Amendment X)?I am compelled to say yes, since no other government has our precise constitution, or the actual bill of rights appurtenant to it; but principly, I still say no--there are plenty of examples of governments previous to the U.S. that embraced limited centralized government.


This is not merely limited government, LOki - this is government of which the absolute WORST is expected, and planned against. This is government behind an electrified, razor-wire fence, patrolled by ill-humored Doberman pinschers and pissed-off Hell's Angels. The worldview that created this system was informed by an intense, deeply-held pessimism regarding man's nature - and the nature of the governments he devises.Don't forget to mention the religions that men devise too; and this sentiment was not at all new--as previously demonstrated.


That this theist and that atheist were numbered among the founders of this nation does not convince me that man was able to arrive at this daunting conclusion through pure rationality; the evidence of human history itself strains such a belief past the breaking point.Are you suggesting that it is irrational that our founders should have chosen to avoid the very religious principles of governance that led to the religious oppressions they experienced, and the centuries of bloodshed those principles inspired on the European continent?


All of which brings us to Christian principle.I'll just bet it does.


What is the common thread that runs through all denominations of Christianity? The simple answer is, of course, Jesus Christ. But, let's dig a little deeper.This promises to be entertaining...


What does the fact that Jesus came to redeem us suggest to you? The answer is that we [B]require redemption.It actualy suggests more strongly that he came to redeem, and having arrived, that we have been redeemed.


Man is utterly corrupt by his nature; NOTHING he can do will ever make him fit to stand in the sight of almighty God - not the holiest of holy men, not the mightiest of kings, not Mother Teresa.Man is not corrupt by nature, unless you are making the un-Christian assertion that God created man's nature that way.


Our innate depravity is inescapable - it is no respecter of persons - we're all in the same boat. None of us are blue-bloods - none of us has the right to force our personal notions of right and wrong, outside the rule of civilized law, upon anybody else - none of us is intrinsically any better than anyone else.Our depravity is not innate, <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Job/Job001.html#top">Job is proof of that</a>, and it is absolutely escapable, otherwise sin is just another natural catastrophe that happens to men, rather than one they commit--you clearly have no idea what human nature is, the nature of God, or what the most fundamental notions of Christianity are.


Without belief on Jesus Christ, we are all equally lost.That is certainly a singularly identifiable Christian principle, but probably not for the reasons you think.


What sort of governmental system do YOU think men informed by such principles would devise?Under your notions: A constitutional theocracy that unambiguously asserts Jesus as Savior and Redeemer, that establishes that governmental authority is derived of the supreme and redemptive authority of Jesus Christ, and demands every citizen be Christian so that they might not be "lost".


Can you demonstrate its like anywhere else...18th Century England was pretty close, 15th through 19th Century <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Inquisition">Spain</a> was even closer.


- besides the U.S. Constitution - in human history?Question begging; the Christian foundations of this nation are at issue, and this nation wasn't founded upon the belief that Jesus Christ is the sole path to redemption--in fact, it was founded on a notion quite contrary: that there are many paths to redemption, and men must be free to persue those paths according to their own consciences.



and the freedom of one's religion, other than Christianity, is a patently un-Christian principle.Who's coercing YOU, LOki?Thanks to the patently un-Christian principle of religious tolerance and freedom that this nation was founded upon; no-one.



There might still be a uniquely Christian founding principle in there I'm missing musicman, and the invitiation is still open to you, to point one out.I've tried to scratch the surface here. You could probably swing a cat and hit five Christians more knowledgeable than myself. But, I'm happy to discuss any aspect of this topic you'd like, to the best of my ability.Ok. If this nation was founded upon Chrisitan principles, why isn't this Christian principle (where Jesus is God) of human governance codified in the Constitution?<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Deu/Deu017.html#top">Deuteronmomy 17:2-5:</b></a>
<i>"If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant, and hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded; and it be told thee, and thou hast heard [of it], and enquired diligently, and, behold, [it be] true, [and] the thing certain, [that] such abomination is wrought in Israel: <b>Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, [even] that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die.</b>"</i></blockquote>AND<blockquote><a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Deu/Deu013.html#4"><b>Deuteronomy 13:4-10:</b></a>
<i>"Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. And that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death; because he hath spoken to turn [you] away from the LORD your God, which brought you out of the land of Egypt, and redeemed you out of the house of bondage, to thrust thee out of the way which the LORD thy God commanded thee to walk in. So shalt thou put the evil away from the midst of thee. If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which [is] as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; [Namely], of the gods of the people which [are] round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the [one] end of the earth even unto the [other] end of the earth; Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: <b>But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die</b>; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage."</i></blockquote>You see, according to Jesus, the citizens of a nation founded upon the principles of Christianity are compelled by that Christianity to make the worship of other gods, and the practice of other religions a capital crime punishable by stoning to death--that is precisely one way in which the <a href="http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coercion"><b>coercive</b></a> beliefs of Christianity take on the power of human governance in a nation founded upon Christianity--and it is a fundamental principle that the Founders of this nation patently rejected.

[truthmatters]

James Madison, fourth president and father of the Constitution, "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

[LOki]

musicman... you are an OAK to be still arguing with this moron loki. The fact that the founding of this country is steeped in Christianity has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in this thread,...I do not doubt that you remain unshaken in your faith that this nation was founded upon Christain principles, but it certainly has not ben proven with evidence, or valid logic.


...and only a complete liar and blowhard can continue to deny it.Only someone with an obtuse and persistent disdain for evidence and valid logic would assert that "...the founding of this country is steeped in Christianity has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt in this thread".


We wouldn't put our hand on the Bible to "swear in" before testifying in court if we weren't a Christian nation.We would be required by law to, if this were a Chrisitan Nation.


We wouldn't have "In God We Trust" on our money, and plastered all over practically every government building if we weren't a Christian nation.We would have "In Jesus Christ We Trust" on our money, and plastered all over practically every government building if we were a Christian nation.


Our founding fathers believed we NEEDED God, and that is ABUNDANTLY clear. It's simply disingenuous to deny it.It's abundantly clear that our Founding Fathers believed alot of things, and one of them was that creating the United States as a "Christian nation", would be a mistake.


This loki has done his level best to spin, twist, distort, deflect, deny, and lie about this issue, all for one reason.Your accusation would be more convincing, and credible, if it was not an <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Exd/Exd020.html#16">unsubstantiated accusation.</a>


He does NOT believe in God himself,...More <a href="http://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/Exd/Exd020.html#16">unsubstantiated accusation.</a>


...and the proof of this country being founded primarily as a Christian nation could be a baseball bat upside his head and he could be knocked unconscious by it.Proof, and baseball bats have evidence in reality in common with each other--your "Christian nation" proofs have all the knock-out power of the Easter Bunny.


But he'd still try and convince you and I that he simply "passed out."You repeat your unsubstantiaed opinions as if they were verified facts for the benefit of other retards that are convinced by such repetitions, and unconvinced by evidence.


It's ridiculous and pathetic.Ridiculous and pathetic are the false accusations, ad-hominem fallacies, and persistent denials of evidence you resort to in order to maintain the integrity of your sanctimoniously held opinions.

[glockmail]

I am tired of this..... patently rejected.


I do not doubt ..... held opinions.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=91433&postcount=238

As usual the glockster is succinct and spot-on.
:pee:

[LOki]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=91433&postcount=238

As usual the glockster is succinct and spot-on.
:pee:As usual, when faced with a substantive post contrary to your assertions, you lose bladder control.

[glockmail]

As usual, when faced with a substantive post contrary to your assertions, you lose bladder control. As usual, you be wrong-o. :fart:

[musicman]

I am tired of this repeated and unsubstantiated accusation of yours. Let's just look at what I understand, and remind ourselves about where you made up your bullshit accusation about me:

You're a real piece of work, LOki. Utilizing your search engine, you could key in the words, "Christian principle", and - in thirty seconds - quadruple your knowledge of the topic. But, that wouldn't do; you'd find out I'm right. You'd rather empty out the Book of Deuteronomy, cut and paste our entire conversation, and grasp at any straw you can find. You are frantic to somehow demonstrate that Christian principle - applied to the matter of human governance - would force the worship of Jesus on the governed. Then, your assertion...


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on

...won't be the baseless horseshit you believe because you must. But it IS baseless horseshit. Believe it if you must.

[LOki]

You're a real piece of work, LOki. Utilizing your search engine, you could key in the words, "Christian principle", and - in thirty seconds - quadruple your knowledge of the topic. But, that wouldn't do; you'd find out I'm right.I actually found out that you were wrong. Your unsubstantiated denials fail to rebut the evidence presented.


You'd rather empty out the Book of Deuteronomy, cut and paste our entire conversation, and grasp at any straw you can find.You'd rather deny the evidence in the Book of Deuteronomy, and the evidence in our conversations, that demonstrate that you're the one lacking in understanding of the fundamental principles of Christianity.


You are frantic to somehow demonstrate that Christian principle - applied to the matter of human governance - would force the worship of Jesus on the governed. Then, your assertion...

No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on
...won't be the baseless horseshit you believe because you must. But it IS baseless horseshit. Believe it if you must.Except that I am not frantic, and the evidence has demonstrated the factual basis of my assertion. The evidentiary basis for my assertion is clear. Your denial of evidence, and disdain for valid logic, as a basis for an assertion is your only basis for your consistent dismissal of facts and reasoning; and your false accusations regarding me are evidence of your frantic desire to deny that my assertions are correct.

[glockmail]

You're a real piece of work, LOki. Utilizing your search engine, you could key in the words, "Christian principle", and - in thirty seconds - quadruple your knowledge of the topic. But, that wouldn't do; you'd find out I'm right. You'd rather empty out the Book of Deuteronomy, cut and paste our entire conversation, and grasp at any straw you can find. You are frantic to somehow demonstrate that Christian principle - applied to the matter of human governance - would force the worship of Jesus on the governed. Then, your assertion...



...won't be the baseless horseshit you believe because you must. But it IS baseless horseshit. Believe it if you must.

So true as LOki is obviously a Google whore.

Michael Medved, who is Jewish, has expressed his gratitude that he lives in this Christain Nation, since the principles of Christianity give him freedom that would not otherwise be possible.

[gabosaurus]

Freedom of religion is an essential part of the fabric of America. You have a freedom to worship, as well as a freedom to not worship. One side does not have a right to impose its will on the other.

[glockmail]

Freedom of religion is an essential part of the fabric of America. You have a freedom to worship, as well as a freedom to not worship. One side does not have a right to impose its will on the other.
Once again, your post is irrelevant to the OP.

[musicman]

...the evidence has demonstrated the factual basis of my assertion.

You're not interested in pursuing truth, LOki; you're frantically clutching at any straw that will help conceal, obscure, and bury the fact that your assertion stepped on a land mine a couple of hundred posts ago. You're not holding up your end of this debate; I am declaring myself officially Bored With It. Believe what you have to believe, but - if you plan on advancing this assertion...


No singly identifiable Christian principle is a principle this nation was founded on

...to the larger world - I suggest you arm yourself better.

[TheStripey1]

...snip

This country was founded by a bunch of Deists and renegade Christians who had seen first-hand what dogmatic Christian dogma can do to wreck people's lives and they definitely were against identifying this country with any one religion.

You might argue that this is a Christian nation because most people are nominally Christian, but there is no official religion.

And most of the people who are nominally Christian couldn't give a rat's ass about going to church or practicing Christianity.

well said, GW... especially the part in bold...

[LOki]

You're not interested in pursuing truth, LOki; you're frantically clutching at any straw that will help conceal, obscure, and bury the fact that your assertion stepped on a land mine a couple of hundred posts ago. You're not holding up your end of this debate; I am declaring myself officially Bored With It. Believe what you have to believe, but - if you plan on advancing this assertion...



...to the larger world - I suggest you arm yourself better.100% Projection.

[glockmail]

100% Projection. Not quite. He's got you down to a T.

[LOki]

Not quite. He's got you down to a T.100% pathological.

[glockmail]

100% pathological.:pee:

[DragonStryk72]

Okay, our founding fathers were libertarian deists, hence why they made the government so small. Initially, they wanted a true republic, with no House, and no President, just the Senate and the Supreme Court. They purposely put in the first amendment separating Church & State, period. It's in the first amendment, for proof pick up ANY copy of the constitution and read, and then, while you're at it, go ahead and read the rest, it's really a good read.

Now, as to the whole christian nation thing, the argument is moot, and useless. You put up a challenge that a singer, who came around after the founding father had died off, wrote a single line in a song, and to you, that is proof that we were founded as a Christian Nation. I hate to break this to you, man, but we were founded in 1776, and recognized by England in 1783, which is just a might bit before that whole 1813 point.

Now, our most cherished principle read like this:

First Amendment – Freedom of religion, speech, press, and peaceable assembly as well as the right to petition the government.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Second Amendment – Right to keep and bear arms.
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Fifth Amendment – Due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, private property.
No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and other rights of the accused.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.
In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail, as well as cruel and unusual punishment.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Tenth Amendment – Powers of states and people.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I used the shortened version to catch the highlights, as well as to be brief about it. I have enough faith in Christ to put my cross down for the greater good. Many Christians I have seen lack such a strength of faith.

[glockmail]

Okay, our founding fathers were libertarian deists, hence ..... Lost me here. Proof?

[DragonStryk72]

Lost me here. Proof?

Okay, quick and dirty summation here, The founding fathers believed that God set down all the rules of the universe right back at the beginning, and that, in order for us to have free will, he would naturally have to step back (Deism). Libertarians believe the same of government, that liberty is best served when the government is more circumcept, allowing its people more room to breathe. Our forefathers were of profound faith, and they understood that what America needed was religious protection, which could only be done by divorcing the church from the state.

As for proof, this has been in just about every history book north and south that deals with the founding fathers, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to find it. Beyond that, I work for Colonial Williamsburg as a historical Interpreter, and, since Williamsburg was host to the Founding Fathers on numerous occassions (Take a tour of the Raleigh Tavern and it will be mentioned as a regular stop for them, since it was so close to the capital), I have been bludgeoned with the history for the past 7 years pretty thoroughly. Further, I have a graduates degree in Museum Education through the College of William & Mary, so again, I've been fairly well bludgeoned with the Colonial History.

Now, this by no means is any attack on Christianity, when not taken to a fundamentalist level, Christianity is a very good thing (hence why I follow it), as is Judaica, Buddhism, Taoism, Bushido, Muslim, Asatru, and Wicca to name a few. The case here before us though, is that religion and politics do not mix, and our founders understood this, hence the divide. Yes, the majority of our culture is of one Christian group or another, but the whole point is to serve liberty equally to all, to keep the religion out of politics, so that when we debate the course of our country, we do it with reason, so that we do not polarize into factions. Most people, as well, are only lip-service Christians (You mean I have to wake up early sunday? Man, I am too hungover to be going to church on Sunday).

Theocracies just don't work (example: ANYWHERE in the Middle East), because every religious text out there says the same thing: Mine is the one true way, all others are false.

[glockmail]

Okay, quick and dirty summation here, The founding fathers believed that God set down all the rules of the universe right back at the beginning, and that, in order for us to have free will, he would naturally have to step back (Deism). Libertarians believe the same of government, that liberty is best served when the government is more circumcept, allowing its people more room to breathe. Our forefathers were of profound faith, and they understood that what America needed was religious protection, which could only be done by divorcing the church from the state.

As for proof, this has been in just about every history book north and south that deals with the founding fathers, so it shouldn't be too hard for you to find it. Beyond that, I work for Colonial Williamsburg as a historical Interpreter, and, since Williamsburg was host to the Founding Fathers on numerous occassions (Take a tour of the Raleigh Tavern and it will be mentioned as a regular stop for them, since it was so close to the capital), I have been bludgeoned with the history for the past 7 years pretty thoroughly. Further, I have a graduates degree in Museum Education through the College of William & Mary, so again, I've been fairly well bludgeoned with the Colonial History.

Now, this by no means is any attack on Christianity, when not taken to a fundamentalist level, Christianity is a very good thing (hence why I follow it), as is Judaica, Buddhism, Taoism, Bushido, Muslim, Asatru, and Wicca to name a few. The case here before us though, is that religion and politics do not mix, and our founders understood this, hence the divide. Yes, the majority of our culture is of one Christian group or another, but the whole point is to serve liberty equally to all, to keep the religion out of politics, so that when we debate the course of our country, we do it with reason, so that we do not polarize into factions. Most people, as well, are only lip-service Christians (You mean I have to wake up early sunday? Man, I am too hungover to be going to church on Sunday).

Theocracies just don't work (example: ANYWHERE in the Middle East), because every religious text out there says the same thing: Mine is the one true way, all others are false. The deism argument falls flat whenever its tried, as is the theocrat one. Get real man.

[bullypulpit]

Oh, fuck you.

This country was founded by a bunch of Deists and renegade Christians who had seen first-hand what dogmatic Christian dogma can do to wreck people's lives and they definitely were against identifying this country with any one religion.

You might argue that this is a Christian nation because most people are nominally Christian, but there is no official religion.

And most of the people who are nominally Christian couldn't give a rat's ass about going to church or practicing Christianity.

And don't forget the Massachusetts Bay Colony...The Founding Fathers saw the horrors that could be perpetrated in a theocracy first hand with that inbred bunch.

[glockmail]

And don't forget the Massachusetts Bay Colony...The Founding Fathers saw the horrors that could be perpetrated in a theocracy first hand with that inbred bunch. And look what they turned into: The Gay State.

[manu1959]

if america was not founded by christians......who was it founded by?

[glockmail]

According to the Liberals: Deists. They use this argument because the Founders were anti-Angican, ince the official Church of England claimed the King was ordained by God. The fact is, of course, that the Founders were Christians who had no respect for that particular denomination, instead citing "Natures God", One who "created all Men equal", and who was of course, Jesus.

A typical battle cry among the Patriots who battled the British was "We have no King but Jesus". :salute:

[DragonStryk72]

The deism argument falls flat whenever its tried, as is the theocrat one. Get real man.

In other words, you can't shoot my argument down. That's just plain sad, man.

You overlooked the meat, just to look for the parts you would be able to shoot down, except, you didn't even do that well. There is no point in a talk with you on this or any other point that could be made, because, in the end, you will disregard all logic, reason, and proof, to grasp for an argument that has no foundation.

We were not founded as a Christian Nation, we are founded as a nation of all religion, of all cultures. Now for The Jesus solution, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

When did I say Deists weren't christians? The point was that the USA was not founded as a Christian NATION, as per glockmail's initial point. They are two separate things. That's part and parcel to the whole problem of the discussion, is to look at what we were founded on, versus our founders' religion. Even though, by and large, many were christian, we were founded separate of religion, in order for religion to be free for all. the whole reason we had as many immigrants at first was because of the religious persecution that was rampant in england against Catholics, specifically roman catholics (Due to the Church of England having broken of from the Vatican some time before. also responsible for the influx of Irish we got, who were more than 90% roman Catholics.)

[glockmail]

In other words, you can't shoot my argument down. That's just plain sad, man.

You overlooked the meat, just to look for the parts you would be able to shoot down, except, you didn't even do that well. There is no point in a talk with you on this or any other point that could be made, because, in the end, you will disregard all logic, reason, and proof, to grasp for an argument that has no foundation.

We were not founded as a Christian Nation, we are founded as a nation of all religion, of all cultures. Now for The Jesus solution, “Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21).

When did I say Deists weren't christians? The point was that the USA was not founded as a Christian NATION, as per glockmail's initial point. They are two separate things. That's part and parcel to the whole problem of the discussion, is to look at what we were founded on, versus our founders' religion. Even though, by and large, many were christian, we were founded separate of religion, in order for religion to be free for all. the whole reason we had as many immigrants at first was because of the religious persecution that was rampant in england against Catholics, specifically roman catholics (Due to the Church of England having broken of from the Vatican some time before. also responsible for the influx of Irish we got, who were more than 90% roman Catholics.)
1. Your argument was shot down deep within this thread. Its a shame you didn't read and comprehend that. That's just plain sad, man.
2. Perhaps you can point out the difference between Catholics and Roman Catholics for us. :poke:

[manu1959]

We were not founded as a Christian Nation, we are founded as a nation of all religion, of all cultures.



that is simply wishfull thinking.....

for if we were founded the way you claim, the paryer in the house and senate and invocation would not be denominational and chineese and black slavery and eastern religions would not have been persecuted....

nice try though

[LuvRPgrl]

As usual, when faced with a substantive post contrary to your assertions, you lose bladder control.

You actually think anybody read even half of your post #454?

To post that much material in one post is a sure sign of narcisism


First, to say we are a Christian nation is not the same as saying we have a Christian GOVT, which is what your arguements are steeped in.

If you bothered reading some of George Washingtons writings, you would find that no only were we founded as a Christian nation, the founding fathers also believed fervently that without Christianiy and the Guidance of Almight God, our govt would be doomed to failure.
They distrusted govt because it is run by people. They believed that only the influence of God could keep it from getting totally corrupted.

Now, what do you think about the NATIONAL holiday, Thanksgiving? Its founding is based on giving THANKS to God.

You also are very ignorant regarding the FF desires of theocracy.

The Constitution, which another person so dutifully quoted, and mis represented due to his ignorance also, was written to keep the FEDERAL govt under control and not let it take those powers from the States.

Now, fact is, many of the States did have OFFICIAL STATE SANCTIONED DENOMINATIONS AS THEIR OFFICIAL RELIGION.

Another stupid statement is the thing about us being founded as a multi cultural country. WRONG. Its one of the many things that liberals delude themselves with by ignoring the past, and believing that the way it is today is how its always been.

If you check out the laws of the land at that time, multi culturalism was the farthest thing from their minds.

[bullypulpit]

This thread really got the right wing-nuts whipped into a frenzy.

The Constitution, which is the law of the land, makes no mention of either God or Christ or Christianity. In fact no real mention of religion is made until the First Amendment which states:

<blockquote><b>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion</b>, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.</blockquote>

Which means that the government shall establish no state religion. Of course, if any more strict constructionists in the vein of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito make it to the SCOTUS, there will likely be no barrier to the individual states establishing state sponsored religion.

More importantly, and the question ALWAYS goes begging, is which branch or denomitation of Christianity is adopted? Would it be Roman Catholic?...Eastern Orthodox?...Protestant...? And which branch of that tangled tree is pre-eminent? Anglican?...Lutheran?...Methodist?...Baptist?

This is the trap the Founders sought to avoid in barring government from establishing a state religion. They recognized exactly how divisive the various schisms and doctrinal fights between the schools of religious thought can be. This is due to the utter subjectivity of religious doctrine. The moral values of religion are not rooted in their objective consequences here and now. Instead they are rooted in some sort of divine mandate handed down from on high by some unknowable metaphysical entity and open to interpretation by any self-appointed interpreter of divine will.

So, if America is a "Christian" nation, which particular brand of Christianity is to be the state religion? Are you willing to impose it at the point of a gun? How many are you willing to see die in the process?

[glockmail]

....

The Constitution, which is the law of the land, makes no mention of either God or Christ or Christianity. ....

So where do you suppose they got the Blessings of Liberty from, that they felt the need to Secure?

Also you are forgetting the Founding Document, which is the Declaration of Independence.

[5stringJeff]

Which means that the government shall establish no state religion. Of course, if any more strict constructionists in the vein of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito make it to the SCOTUS, there will likely be no barrier to the individual states establishing state sponsored religion.

Actually, some states did have official religions when they ratified the Constitution. Since the 14th Amendment has been declared binding on states, though, states are subject to the restrictions on governmental power mentioned in the Bill of Rights just like the federal government is.

[bullypulpit]

So where do you suppose they got the Blessings of Liberty from, that they felt the need to Secure?

Also you are forgetting the Founding Document, which is the Declaration of Independence.

You are reading FAR too much into the word "Blessings". As for the Declaration of Independence, it mentions a "natural God" which is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Also, the Declaration, was aimed at announcing the separation of the "thirteen states" from Great Britain and listed the grievances leading to that separation. It has no standing as law.

It should also be noted that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli states:

<blockquote>As the government of <b>the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion</b>,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.</blockquote>

This treaty was negotiated under the authority of George Washington and approved by the full Senate led by John Adams, the second president.

America may be a nation of Christians, but it is not a Christian nation.

[Abbey Marie]

You are reading FAR too much into the word "Blessings". As for the Declaration of Independence, it mentions a "natural God" which is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Also, the Declaration, was aimed at announcing the separation of the "thirteen states" from Great Britain and listed the grievances leading to that separation. It has no standing as law.

It should also be noted that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli states:

<blockquote>As the government of <b>the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion</b>,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.</blockquote>

This treaty was negotiated under the authority of George Washington and approved by the full Senate led by John Adams, the second president.

America may be a nation of Christians, but it is not a Christian nation.


Founded on = established on. Yes, we all know that the founders were against establishing a national religion. That is quite separate from the fact that they were by far mostly Christian, and as someone said earlier, felt the innate need for God to help steer the nation in a proper course, and the innate need to thank Him for their blessings.

[Hagbard Celine]

This is Americuh! We believe in Jesus! All you other FOREIGNERS with your weirdo hoo-do worshipping can jest GIT OUT! :laugh2: What a bunch of F*ckin' rednecks. :rolleyes: :laugh: Oh yeah! And if you don't speak ENGLISH, you can jest GIT OUT too! We can't understand yer weirdo gobbledy-gook FRENCH TALK so you can jest go back where you CAME FROM! UGH!

[glockmail]

You are reading FAR too much into the word "Blessings". As for the Declaration of Independence, it mentions a "natural God" which is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Also, the Declaration, was aimed at announcing the separation of the "thirteen states" from Great Britain and listed the grievances leading to that separation. It has no standing as law.

It should also be noted that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli states:

<blockquote>As the government of <b>the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion</b>,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.</blockquote>

This treaty was negotiated under the authority of George Washington and approved by the full Senate led by John Adams, the second president.

America may be a nation of Christians, but it is not a Christian nation.

1. The DOI mentions "Nature's God", in direct definace to the Church of England, who claimed the poewr of the king was granted by God. There's no doubt who "God" refers to.
2. The portion of the treaty that you refer to was form a draft. The final approved treaty contained no such language.

[bullypulpit]

Founded on = established on. Yes, we all know that the founders were against establishing a national religion. That is quite separate from the fact that they were by far mostly Christian, and as someone said earlier, felt the innate need for God to help steer the nation in a proper course, and the innate need to thank Him for their blessings.

The treaty, as signed on January 3, 1797, included Article 11. The treaty remained in force for eight years, then renegotiated. The language of Article 11 was dropped at that time.

The writings of the founders seem to reveal more of a tendency towards deism than any established religious belief.

[LuvRPgrl]

The treaty, as signed on January 3, 1797, included Article 11. The treaty remained in force for eight years, then renegotiated. The language of Article 11 was dropped at that time.

The writings of the founders seem to reveal more of a tendency towards deism than any established religious belief.

THE issue is what was done at the time of the revolution and writing of the original COTUS.
This makes the 14Th amendment irrelevant to this discussion. As stated by Abbey, they didnt want the FEDERAL govt to have the power, but they did want the STATES to have that power.

Question, was the Country founded on Christian principles. Considering the FF went back to their respective states and instituted STAte SANCTIONED religions, the obvious answer is yes.
Not to mention writings like G Washington who stated, our county, if its laws are not guided by Almighty God, is doomed to failure.
Then there is Thanksgiving.
You can come up with all the other crap you want to, but unless you answer those situations adequately, YOU ARE SIMPLY WRONG. PSSSS, (its ok to admit it)

[Missileman]

Question, was the Country founded on Christian principles.

When you speak about founding a country, you're really saying establishing a government. Which Christian principles are codified in the U.S. Constitution and laws? Be specific please.

[Classact]

You are reading FAR too much into the word "Blessings". As for the Declaration of Independence, it mentions a "natural God" which is ambiguous and open to interpretation. Also, the Declaration, was aimed at announcing the separation of the "thirteen states" from Great Britain and listed the grievances leading to that separation. It has no standing as law.

It should also be noted that Article 11 of the Treaty of Tripoli states:

<blockquote>As the government of <b>the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion</b>,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.</blockquote>

This treaty was negotiated under the authority of George Washington and approved by the full Senate led by John Adams, the second president.

America may be a nation of Christians, but it is not a Christian nation.I think the Treaty of Tripoli has many unanswered questions... to start read this link... http://www.tektonics.org/qt/tripoli.html

[Classact]

I debated this same topic on another debate site and concluded that America is a Christian nation and was founded on Christian values... this is a first installment of my reasoning...
http://www.constitution.org/ and at a sub link on that site http://www.constitution.org/jury/pj/nelson.txt much more information is cited by legal and constitutional scholars, this document is quite lengthily so the key information I would like you to view which supports my conclusion of government founded on common law, neutral to a particular Christian religious denomination verses Secular or Judeo-Christian founding may be viewed at Notes at bottom of the link, which supports credibility of source and further explained in numbering sequence within the text for more clearly understanding America at the time period. Note and text found on link of interest are 33, 62, 63, 64 79(religious) and 83.
According to Encarta Encyclopedia 99, key search word “crime” and all highlighted sub topics within the article the US government adopted common law over civil law along with most of the UK and Canada unlike the remainder of Europe that adopted Civil Law with roots in Ancient Rome.

Under Common Law violations were divided into three groups, treason, felony and misdemeanor however offences could not be defined exactly and the rule of law vagueness was if the incident is considered any immoral act tending to prejudice the “community” was a crime punishable by courts. Common law was established based on functional social anthropology to support the religious culture at the time or any culture change or “acculturation” would cause the law to best allow culture normalcy to the community or the anticipated norm. To be abstract to the community was against the law as defined by Encarta.

By placing the above information in context with the below link one would have to conclude the government was established to exercise free religion and the government would not create a preferential denomination as the country’s base religion working on the equal level as government as was the practice in Europe in the period.

Please read this link: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

[Classact]

One more tidbit... I haven’t read the entire thread and someone else may have already brought this up… but how about this to get you questioning SECULAR?


On January 21, 1781, Robert Aitken petitioned the Unites States Congress to authorize, and if possible even fund, the printing of a complete Bible in the English language of the King James Version. On September 10, 1782, Aitken received authorization from the United States Congress to commence his American printing of the Bible in English. This is the only instance in history of the U.S. Congress authorizing the printing of a Bible. In subsequent years, that session was often mockingly referred to as “The Bible Congress.” Thus, in 1782, Robert Aitken produced the first English language Bible printed in America. In 1783, George Washington wrote a letter commending Robert Aitken for his Bible. The Robert Aitken Bible is known as the “Bible of the American Revolution” and it remains the most rare and valuable of early American English Bibles.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/colonial-bibles.html

[LuvRPgrl]

When you speak about founding a country, you're really saying establishing a government. Which Christian principles are codified in the U.S. Constitution and laws? Be specific please.

Your question shows you seriously lack understanding of the basic principles of the founding fathers, what they intended to establish and what they envisioned for this country.

It also shows a very narrow minded attitude with a built in agenda other than the truth because the question immediately limits the founding of the country on the US Constitution and nothing else.

[LuvRPgrl]

One more tidbit... I haven’t read the entire thread and someone else may have already brought this up… but how about this to get you questioning SECULAR?


http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/colonial-bibles.html

The amount of evidence is so overwhelming, that as soon as someone enters the discussion with the obvious attitude that it wasnt founded as a Christian nation, you instantly know they are either very ignorant (and as misguided as some around here may be, ignorance is in very short supply) or they have an agenda.

This almost goes up there with those trying to deny the Halocaust ever happened.

[Missileman]

Your question shows you seriously lack understanding of the basic principles of the founding fathers, what they intended to establish and what they envisioned for this country.


It also shows a very narrow minded attitude with a built in agenda other than the truth because the question immediately limits the founding of the country on the US Constitution and nothing else.

This answer shows you haven't anything at all to back up your claim. Your premise is flawed and indefensible.

If you feel the need to expand the scope of founding beyond the Constitution and laws, knock yourself out. I would expect you to explain precisely how your additional factors were part of the "founding" of the U.S.

[LuvRPgrl]

This answer shows you haven't anything at all to back up your claim. Your premise is flawed and indefensible.

If you feel the need to expand the scope of founding beyond the Constitution and laws, knock yourself out. I would expect you to explain precisely how your additional factors were part of the "founding" of the U.S.

You are still ignorant about what the FF wanted to establish. Until you realize it, its like trying to teach a monkey how to type.

I will give you two clues however.

1. The fathers wrote the first Constitution giving the FEDERAL govt such limited powers, that the country was not able to function very well regarding issues between the states.

2. George Washington, as ALL the other delegates to the signing of the Constitution never considered themselves Americans, GW called himself a Virginian, Jefferson a (fill in the blank according to which STATE they came from)

lastly, are you going to deny that the States had nothing to do with the founding of the nation?

You seriously need to be less agenda driven and more open minded about issues.

[Missileman]

You are still ignorant about what the FF wanted to establish. Until you realize it, its like trying to teach a monkey how to type.

I will give you two clues however.

1. The fathers wrote the first Constitution giving the FEDERAL govt such limited powers, that the country was not able to function very well regarding issues between the states.

2. George Washington, as ALL the other delegates to the signing of the Constitution never considered themselves Americans, GW called himself a Virginian, Jefferson a (fill in the blank according to which STATE they came from)

lastly, are you going to deny that the States had nothing to do with the founding of the nation?

You seriously need to be less agenda driven and more open minded about issues.

None of this dribble supports your contention that the U.S. was founded on Christian principles. Spend a little less time telling me that you have this unique ability to read the minds of the founding fathers across the bounds of time and a put something up here that supports your assertion in a meaningful manner.