America was founded as a Christian Nation

[LuvRPgrl]

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.

I said I can read their minds?? Really now, once again you fabricate.

Im not going to do your homework for you, go do it yourself. Try spending some time reading the history of the era and do it without a totally polluted closed mind.

Its like, until you can prove you can do long division, trying to explain calculus to you is a waste of time.

[Missileman]

Im not going to do your homework for you, go do it yourself.


YOU made a claim that the U.S. is founded on Christian principles and now you want ME to prove it for you. It may work that way in the make-believe world you reside in, but not here in realty. Make your case, or admit you have none.

P.S. Limited federal power and identifying oneself by state residency are NOT Christian principles.

[LuvRPgrl]

YOU made a claim that the U.S. is founded on Christian principles and now you want ME to prove it for you. It may work that way in the make-believe world you reside in, but not here in realty. Make your case, or admit you have none.

P.S. Limited federal power and identifying oneself by state residency are NOT Christian principles.

Listen moron. Try to follow

You asked me which Christian principles are codified in the US constitution and Law.

First, I never said there is any

But I did point out that it is irrelevant to the discussion to limit it to the COTUS and codified law, and then you wanted me to prove that.

Im telling you to take your old worn out tired BS and do some homework. You have already shown your ignorance by asking that question about the COTUS and law. Im not going to do your homework for you. Ive already done mine, your ignorant question proves you havent done yours.

Now, go learn to multiply before you start debating calculus.

After you are done learning a little about the REAL intentions of the FF, get back to me.

[LuvRPgrl]

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

Fact is, no matter how much proof and evidence we come up with, they will wiggle their way out of it. We could have a document signed by all the FF, stating we are a Christian nation, and they would still deny it.

Delusional people simply cant see truth.

WHEREAS it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favour; and Whereas both Houfes of Congress have, by their joint committee, requefted me "to recommend to the people of the United States a DAY OF PUBLICK THANSGIVING and PRAYER, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to eftablifh a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

NOW THEREFORE, I do recommend and affign THURSDAY, the TWENTY-SIXTH DAY of NOVEMBER next, to be devoted by the people of thefe States to the fervice of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our fincere and humble thanksfor His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the fignal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpofitions of His providence in the courfe and conclufion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have fince enjoyed;-- for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to eftablish Conftitutions of government for our fafety and happinefs, and particularly the national one now lately instituted;-- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are bleffed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffufing useful knowledge;-- and, in general, for all the great and various favours which He has been pleafed to confer upon us.

And also, that we may then unite in moft humbly offering our prayers and fupplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and befeech Him to pardon our national and other tranfgreffions;-- to enable us all, whether in publick or private ftations, to perform our feveral and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a bleffing to all the people by conftantly being a Government of wife, juft, and conftitutional laws, difcreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all fovereigns and nations (especially fuch as have shewn kindnefs unto us); and to blefs them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increafe of fcience among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind fuch a degree of temporal profperity as he alone knows to be beft.

GIVEN under my hand, at the city of New-York, the third day of October, in the year of our Lord, one thousand feven hundred and eighty-nine.

(signed) G. Washington

[Missileman]

Listen moron. Try to follow

You asked me which Christian principles are codified in the US constitution and Law.

First, I never said there is any

But I did point out that it is irrelevant to the discussion to limit it to the COTUS and codified law, and then you wanted me to prove that.

Im telling you to take your old worn out tired BS and do some homework. You have already shown your ignorance by asking that question about the COTUS and law. Im not going to do your homework for you. Ive already done mine, your ignorant question proves you havent done yours.

Now, go learn to multiply before you start debating calculus.

After you are done learning a little about the REAL intentions of the FF, get back to me.

I asked you to expand the scope BEYOND the Constitution and laws to show that the U.S is founded on Christian principles. As yet, the only thing you've done is demand that I prove your argument for you.

If you want to ignore the lack of Christian principles in the basis of our nation, i.e. it's Constitution and laws, then you must be aware of some other basis for your argument that the U.S. is founded on Christian principles. I'm still waiting for you to share this information.

IOW, explain exactly what there is other than the Constitution and laws that you consider the "founding" of the U.S.

[Missileman]

Fact is, no matter how much proof and evidence we come up with, they will wiggle their way out of it. We could have a document signed by all the FF, stating we are a Christian nation, and they would still deny it.

If only there were such a document to deny. :poke:

[actsnoblemartin]

If it was founded as a christian country, what does that mean for non christians?

[Classact]

If it was founded as a christian country, what does that mean for non christians?The country was founded based on Christian Values and all laws are made by the Christian majority since the nation remains a Christian majority. When Jefferson established the separation clause it was to assure a Baptist Preacher that the Catholics or any other branch of the Christian church would be placed in a position of power... you have to keep in mind that MA was a theoracy for decades following the signing of the US Constitution and the State of MA collected taxes for the State Church. This was the practice in Europe leading up to the age of enlightenment and many religions feared a "one powerful" church may do the same in America. The issue of Chruch and state separation remained almost dorment for decades and was revived by the Republicans in the 1950's when MA Catholics became involved in politics.

For non Christians it means you must abide by laws established by Christians and nothing more.

[glockmail]

If only there were such a document to deny. :poke:
LRG called it right, as usual. :poke:

[retiredman]

after having read George Washington's proclamation as posted above by luvRPgrl, I am hard pressed to see how that could not have been written by a devout Jew or a Unitarian, or any member of any monotheistic faith, for that matter. Nothing about that proclamation is specifically "Christian".

[glockmail]

after having read George Washington's proclamation as posted above by luvRPgrl, I am hard pressed to see how that could not have been written by a devout Jew or a Unitarian, or any member of any monotheistic faith, for that matter. Nothing about that proclamation is specifically "Christian".
Except of course that it was written by a tolerant Christian.

[Classact]

after having read George Washington's proclamation as posted above by luvRPgrl, I am hard pressed to see how that could not have been written by a devout Jew or a Unitarian, or any member of any monotheistic faith, for that matter. Nothing about that proclamation is specifically "Christian".I clipped just a couple items but there are many, many more in this address... I recommend everyone read the whole thing.


With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together. The independence and liberty you possess are the work of joint councils and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

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 of human happiness -- these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/49.htm

[retiredman]

Except of course that it was written by a tolerant Christian.

lots of things written by tolerant Christians are not affirmations of any Christian underpinnings to our government. The religious affiliation of the author does not change the fact that what he WROTE does not claim the supremacy of Christianity in American government.

[actsnoblemartin]

Im not attacking christianity, especially given my track record. But

#1 I thought this country was founded by people with jewish and christian values. After all without jews, their are no christians

#2 the founders wanted people to have the freedom to practice whatever faith they chose.

So to say its a christian nation, almost sounds like. Screw off non christians, this was/is for us

I could be wrong, but im just given my 2 cents :coffee:




lots of things written by tolerant Christians are not affirmations of any Christian underpinnings to our government. The religious affiliation of the author does not change the fact that what he WROTE does not claim the supremacy of Christianity in American government.

[retiredman]

Im not attacking christianity, especially given my track record. But

#1 I thought this country was founded by people with jewish and christian values. After all without jews, their are no christians

#2 the founders wanted people to have the freedom to practice whatever faith they chose.

So to say its a christian nation, almost sounds like. Screw off non christians, this was/is for us

I could be wrong, but im just given my 2 cents :coffee:


I agree with that view

[Classact]

lots of things written by tolerant Christians are not affirmations of any Christian underpinnings to our government. The religious affiliation of the author does not change the fact that what he WROTE does not claim the supremacy of Christianity in American government.Did you read my post 512? Now consider the Great Awakening in America that preceeded the founding... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening According to Encarta the Great Awakening and the associated religious bible thumping in the north is what demanded the end of slavery...

[glockmail]

lots of things written by tolerant Christians are not affirmations of any Christian underpinnings to our government. The religious affiliation of the author does not change the fact that what he WROTE does not claim the supremacy of Christianity in American government.
Sure it does. George 1 was not writing about Islam or Judaism. Don't be a fucking dope.

[glockmail]

Did you read my post 512? Now consider the Great Awakening in America that preceeded the founding... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Great_Awakening According to Encarta the Great Awakening and the associated religious bible thumping in the north is what demanded the end of slavery... You forget you're talking to a rabid Democrat here. He ain't interested in facts.

[retiredman]

Sure it does.

because you say so?

oddly enough, that is not really good enough for me:lame2:

[glockmail]

because you say so?

oddly enough, that is not really good enough for me:lame2: Well it ain't becuz you say it ain't pal. The facts speak for themselves. Those are the Ten Commandments on the facade of the Supreme Court not the fucking Koran. :slap:

[Classact]

You forget you're talking to a rabid Democrat here. He ain't interested in facts.I'm really not religious but I read a lot about early America and that era and can find tons of information on the efect of Judeo-Christianity on our founding. Oddly enough I follow, or try to follow Secular rules until crap hits the fan and then I beg to every know "higher power"... I follow this http://home.nvg.org/~aga/stories/enchiridion.html and trust me I screw up all the time... but our nation would not have survived or be what it is today if America was founded on Secular Values... as I presented above... please everyone read the first ten rules and then look at the government we have and see how impossible it would be under Secular Values.

[glockmail]

I'm really not religious but I read a lot about early America and that era and can find tons of information on the efect of Judeo-Christianity on our founding. Oddly enough I follow, or try to follow Secular rules until crap hits the fan and then I beg to every know "higher power"... I follow this http://home.nvg.org/~aga/stories/enchiridion.html and trust me I screw up all the time... but our nation would not have survived or be what it is today if America was founded on Secular Values... as I presented above... please everyone read the first ten rules and then look at the government we have and see how impossible it would be under Secular Values. Funny I go about life from the opposite tact. I try to follow the "good book" whenever possible and most times the secular goes along with that. When it doesn't then its usually something I've got a problem with anyway.

[Missileman]

I'm really not religious but I read a lot about early America and that era and can find tons of information on the efect of Judeo-Christianity on our founding. Oddly enough I follow, or try to follow Secular rules until crap hits the fan and then I beg to every know "higher power"... I follow this http://home.nvg.org/~aga/stories/enchiridion.html and trust me I screw up all the time... but our nation would not have survived or be what it is today if America was founded on Secular Values... as I presented above... please everyone read the first ten rules and then look at the government we have and see how impossible it would be under Secular Values.

I'm not sure that we share the same definition of secular. The government created by the COTUS is secular. When you use the term "secular values" I have no idea what you mean. Secular to me means based in the mundane not the supernatural.

[Classact]

I'm not sure that we share the same definition of secular. The government created by the COTUS is secular. When you use the term "secular values" I have no idea what you mean. Secular to me means based in the mundane not the supernatural.The link I provided on the Enchoridon expresses mundane values not associated with a higher power... the writer was born in the year 0060 if memory serves... he was born a cripple impoverished with a brilliant mind and was taken into studies with other philosophers... the art of irrefutable debate... go back and read his conclusions as I recommended and if you follow those rules explicitly you will be unharmed. They have nothing to do with a higher power but are merely non debatable facts that cannot be argued.

The Constitution of the US is a neutral document on support of religion by the established government... it assigns responsibilities of different agencies of government... it is a mirror of Social Darwinism... Social Darwinism, is the expression of conservatism along with the basis of capitalism. The COTUS could not be ratified by the states because everyone was not happy with the Social Darwinist plan written by the Federalists... as a result a group of Anti-Federalists grouped together, all bible thumping Christians... and fought against the Federalists for changes that we now know as the Bill of Rights.

Take a look at the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights. How is a president elected? By the Electoral College appointed by rich white guys in the group of states... How are Senators elected? By a group of rich white guys in the group of states. How are House representatives elected? By rich white property owners in the group of states... that's right only property owners could vote, no slaves, no indentured workers... know what an indentured worker is? A person working off his passage to the states by a rich white guys funding... kind of like a British or Irish nanny in today's terms. In the south only plantation owners and Port Authority folks were allowed to vote in Federal elections, just a handful... in the North where the Anti-Federalists came from (the area famous for the Great Awakening) property owners down to shoe makers were allowed to participate in Federal elections... that is why it was necessary to classify the Slave as a fractional person... In the north almost all persons with property could vote but in the South just a handful of rich white men voted for all "citizens" and slaves.

The Anti-Federalist were real, go get busy and Google and read the arguments... they were bible thumpers one and all. The only Deist involved in the revolution wrote anonymous newspaper articles... Thomas somethingorother.

[Missileman]

The link I provided on the Enchoridon expresses mundane values not associated with a higher power... the writer was born in the year 0060 if memory serves... he was born a cripple impoverished with a brilliant mind and was taken into studies with other philosophers... the art of irrefutable debate... go back and read his conclusions as I recommended and if you follow those rules explicitly you will be unharmed. They have nothing to do with a higher power but are merely non debatable facts that cannot be argued.

The Constitution of the US is a neutral document on support of religion by the established government... it assigns responsibilities of different agencies of government... it is a mirror of Social Darwinism... Social Darwinism, is the expression of conservatism along with the basis of capitalism. The COTUS could not be ratified by the states because everyone was not happy with the Social Darwinist plan written by the Federalists... as a result a group of Anti-Federalists grouped together, all bible thumping Christians... and fought against the Federalists for changes that we now know as the Bill of Rights.

Take a look at the US Constitution without the Bill of Rights. How is a president elected? By the Electoral College appointed by rich white guys in the group of states... How are Senators elected? By a group of rich white guys in the group of states. How are House representatives elected? By rich white property owners in the group of states... that's right only property owners could vote, no slaves, no indentured workers... know what an indentured worker is? A person working off his passage to the states by a rich white guys funding... kind of like a British or Irish nanny in today's terms. In the south only plantation owners and Port Authority folks were allowed to vote in Federal elections, just a handful... in the North where the Anti-Federalists came from (the area famous for the Great Awakening) property owners down to shoe makers were allowed to participate in Federal elections... that is why it was necessary to classify the Slave as a fractional person... In the north almost all persons with property could vote but in the South just a handful of rich white men voted for all "citizens" and slaves.

The Anti-Federalist were real, go get busy and Google and read the arguments... they were bible thumpers one and all. The only Deist involved in the revolution wrote anonymous newspaper articles... Thomas somethingorother.

I don't recall arguing that Anti-Federalists were imaginary or that the majority of the founders weren't Christian. What I have argued is that those Christian founders designed a goverment intentionally secular in nature. They had witnessed the perils of mixing religion and government, not only in England, but here in the states as well.

What I was really after was an explanation of what exactly a "secular value" is. Once defined, I might be in a better position to debate whether those values are contrary to a democratic republic.

[Classact]

I don't recall arguing that Anti-Federalists were imaginary or that the majority of the founders weren't Christian. What I have argued is that those Christian founders designed a goverment intentionally secular in nature. They had witnessed the perils of mixing religion and government, not only in England, but here in the states as well.

What I was really after was an explanation of what exactly a "secular value" is. Once defined, I might be in a better position to debate whether those values are contrary to a democratic republic.First let me apologize for thinking you were a modern day secular progressive (as I veiw modern day secular progressives) and for not listening to what you were saying.

Clearly the founders saw the problems associated with the connection of a central church or religion to government. My assertion is that they decided to not involve religion directly with the government and desired to remain "neutral" on any particular denomination of Christianity that prevailed at the time. My position is that to me neutral may mean to you secular but to many on the Secular Progressive stance, that I assumed you were think the founders were totally to smart and advanced to believe in a higher power. With that said, there was a problem with religion at the time because at least one state, MA had a theoracy and there were many from the other states that were in differing denominations that feared the central government would attach itself to a single branch... the Jefferson separation clause was based on a discussion with a Baptist Preacher on that very issue. There were serious discussions about Mormons at the time as it associated with freedom of religion... Dutch Quakers also had a loud voice... We must remember that many of the people that had arrived most recently in the new world were fleeing religious persecution... many Germans and in fact the Constitution was written bilingual in English-German. The founders saw religion as a binding factor for the nation and a factor that could tear it apart.

As for exactly what is a secular value is difficult to state... one would have to state it would be a value based on morals but excluding religion backing or the belief of a higher power. Secular Values is mans learned resolution of reason that it is better to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This isn't the nature of man or we wouldn't have taken land from the Indians as we did... if this were the nature of man it would be difficult to pass a homeless person or a stray dog without adopting them... it is parallel to religion but still not religion based. I posted my stoic philosophy link earlier that demostrates rules that one may live by without religious moral backing as another example. In the case of the US constitution the type of law recognized is the key in my mind that distinguishes it from secular law... the new government adopted the "American Common Law" that was commonly known to all or the majority of American colonies... these common laws were quite different than European common law and the established legal system for our government is not to this day shared by any nation on earth. It is a law created by the mob, democratically to support a democratic republic... the rights are unique to only America and exist because of the common theme of Christianity that measured everones worth at that time fairly and equally.

[LuvRPgrl]

If only there were such a document to deny. :poke:

But you dont deny you wouldnt deny it :poke::poke::poke:

[Missileman]

But you dont deny you wouldnt deny it :poke::poke::poke:

I couldn't deny it if it existed. You on the other hand think your hypothetical document which never existed is proof of your claim. It's rather Rather of you.

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't recall arguing that Anti-Federalists were imaginary or that the majority of the founders weren't Christian. What I have argued is that those Christian founders designed a goverment intentionally secular in nature. They had witnessed the perils of mixing religion and government, not only in England, but here in the states as well.

What I was really after was an explanation of what exactly a "secular value" is. Once defined, I might be in a better position to debate whether those values are contrary to a democratic republic.

Your ignorance continues to shine. You think they didnt want to mix religion and govt???? REALLY?

Then precisely why did they go back and vote on laws ESTABLISING STATE SANCTIONED RELIGIONS? ANd why did they virtually all mention in their own personal writings and letters that Christianity is the necessary ingredient in making this country work?

You are so agenda driven it makes you totally blind. You need to do more than read books that support your already erroneous opinons.

Its almost like saying Hitler didnt suggest violence be a part of the nazi culture anywhere because in the official nazi govt documents running the country did they ;anywhere proclaim that violence is good.

Christianity was such a through and through, totally thourough element of the culture in those days that to deny it was to be the lone wolf. Those guys would never have dreamt in a million years the claims being made by many in this thread denying the element of Christianity that governed and was intended to govern every fabric of the country, from personal values, to laws , to the govt institutions to everyday activity and culture

I mean , they used to say "in the year of our Lord"
everything about the FF, the culture, the people and the govt SCREAMED CHRISTIANITY

But I know how totally deluded modern day liberals are, its like Hitler thinking he was doing humanity a favor by exterminating that vile vermin Jew from the face of the earth, yes, he truly believed himself also.

[LuvRPgrl]

If it was founded as a christian country, what does that mean for non christians?
More than any other nation at the time, it meant you could practice whatever religion you cared to or not to, but you would be living in a society that was dominated in spirit and thought, law and culture, influence if Christianity. Mainly because they believed that ever living being would be treated better by one practicing true Christianity than any other belief.

[LuvRPgrl]

I asked you to expand the scope BEYOND the Constitution and laws to show that the U.S is founded on Christian principles. As yet, the only thing you've done is demand that I prove your argument for you.

If you want to ignore the lack of Christian principles in the basis of our nation, i.e. it's Constitution and laws, then you must be aware of some other basis for your argument that the U.S. is founded on Christian principles. I'm still waiting for you to share this information.

IOW, explain exactly what there is other than the Constitution and laws that you consider the "founding" of the U.S.

Its simple, by limiting what our country is about to the US Constitution is to deny we have states rights, state constitution, county boards of supervisors, city ordinances, etc, etc etc.

Are you really so fucking stupid to think only the US Constitution dictates what type of country we are? If so, then you are the antithesis of what the FF stood for.

Is that good enough King George?

Fact is, you are so agenda driven, stupid and ignorant, its incredible.

[LuvRPgrl]

after having read George Washington's proclamation as posted above by luvRPgrl, I am hard pressed to see how that could not have been written by a devout Jew or a Unitarian, or any member of any monotheistic faith, for that matter. Nothing about that proclamation is specifically "Christian".

Apparently you missed the "Ruler of Nations" line, and the final line "in the year of our Lord, 1789...

[Missileman]

Then precisely why did they go back and vote on laws ESTABLISING STATE SANCTIONED RELIGIONS?

They didn't.


I mean , they used to say "in the year of our Lord"
everything about the FF, the culture, the people and the govt SCREAMED CHRISTIANITY

But I know how totally deluded modern day liberals are, its like Hitler thinking he was doing humanity a favor by exterminating that vile vermin Jew from the face of the earth, yes, he truly believed himself also.

Name one founding document that contains the word Christ in it. Unless of course it's your contention that you can scream Christianity without Christ.

[Missileman]

Its simple, by limiting what our country is about to the US Constitution is to deny we have states rights, state constitution, county boards of supervisors, city ordinances, etc, etc etc.

Are you really so fucking stupid to think only the US Constitution dictates what type of country we are? If so, then you are the antithesis of what the FF stood for.

Is that good enough King George?

Fact is, you are so agenda driven, stupid and ignorant, its incredible.

Include all the things listed if you want to. You still won't be able to support your claim. Are you ever actually going to answer the question instead of repeatedly attacking me?

[JackDaniels]

Its simple, by limiting what our country is about to the US Constitution is to deny we have states rights, state constitution, county boards of supervisors, city ordinances, etc, etc etc.

This is a vastly incorrect statement that shows a complete lack of understanding of the Constitution.

[LuvRPgrl]

They didn't.. Yes they did

Colony Denomination Disestablished1
Connecticut Congregational 1818
Georgia Church of England
Massachusetts Congregational 17802
New Brunswick Church of England
New Hampshire Congregational 1790
Newfoundland Church of England
North Carolina Church of England ≤ 1776
Nova Scotia Church of England 1850
Prince Edward Island Church of England
South Carolina Church of England
Upper Canada Church of England 1854
Virginia Church of England 1786
West Indies Church of England 1868

Note 1: In several colonies, the establishment ceased to exist in practice at the Revolution, about 1776; this is the date of legal abolition.

Note 2: Replaced by a system which required every man to belong to a church, and permitted each church to tax its members. This was not, in theory, an establishment; but was sufficiently oppressive in practice, to be abolished in 1833.


HINT: disestablished is the opposite of established. In order to disestablish something, it had to have been established in the first place, and continue to be established until disestablished. Hence, in 1776, the most of the States supported a STATE ESTABLISHED RELIGION OR CHURCH.

What does crow taste like dude? hahahhaha,,,,,,,,,BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH




Name one founding document that contains the word Christ in it. Unless of course it's your contention that you can scream Christianity without Christ.

Find the word God in the Lords prayer.

Is this debate about if the word "Christ" is used?

[glockmail]

Apparently you missed the "Ruler of Nations" line, and the final line "in the year of our Lord, 1789...

Both lines clearly refer to Christ.

[Missileman]

Yes they did

Colony Denomination Disestablished1
Connecticut Congregational 1818
Georgia Church of England
Massachusetts Congregational 17802
New Brunswick Church of England
New Hampshire Congregational 1790
Newfoundland Church of England
North Carolina Church of England ≤ 1776
Nova Scotia Church of England 1850
Prince Edward Island Church of England
South Carolina Church of England
Upper Canada Church of England 1854
Virginia Church of England 1786
West Indies Church of England 1868

Note 1: In several colonies, the establishment ceased to exist in practice at the Revolution, about 1776; this is the date of legal abolition.

Note 2: Replaced by a system which required every man to belong to a church, and permitted each church to tax its members. This was not, in theory, an establishment; but was sufficiently oppressive in practice, to be abolished in 1833.


HINT: disestablished is the opposite of established. In order to disestablish something, it had to have been established in the first place, and continue to be established until disestablished. Hence, in 1776, the most of the States supported a STATE ESTABLISHED RELIGION OR CHURCH.

What does crow taste like dude? hahahhaha,,,,,,,,,BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

Do you really expect anyone to believe that any of the signers of the COTUS went back to their state to establish the Church of England as their official state religion? The official colonial religions were already in place but went the way of the dodo shortly after the formation of the U.S.

[LOki]

Yes they did

Colony Denomination Disestablished1
Connecticut Congregational 1818
Georgia Church of England
Massachusetts Congregational 17802
New Brunswick Church of England
New Hampshire Congregational 1790
Newfoundland Church of England
North Carolina Church of England ≤ 1776
Nova Scotia Church of England 1850
Prince Edward Island Church of England
South Carolina Church of England
Upper Canada Church of England 1854
Virginia Church of England 1786
West Indies Church of England 1868

Note 1: In several colonies, the establishment ceased to exist in practice at the Revolution, about 1776; this is the date of legal abolition.

Note 2: Replaced by a system which required every man to belong to a church, and permitted each church to tax its members. This was not, in theory, an establishment; but was sufficiently oppressive in practice, to be abolished in 1833.


HINT: disestablished is the opposite of established. In order to disestablish something, it had to have been established in the first place, and continue to be established until disestablished. Hence, in 1776, the most of the States supported a STATE ESTABLISHED RELIGION OR CHURCH.

What does crow taste like dude? hahahhaha,,,,,,,,,BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH

ALSO


Your ignorance continues to shine. You think they didnt want to mix religion and govt???? REALLY?

Then precisely why did they go back and vote on laws ESTABLISING STATE SANCTIONED RELIGIONS? ANd why did they virtually all mention in their own personal writings and letters that Christianity is the necessary ingredient in making this country work?

You are so agenda driven it makes you totally blind. You need to do more than read books that support your already erroneous opinons.

You've made a similar claim elsewhere. It went like this:<blockquote><b><a href="http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?p=468906&highlight=government+religion#post468906">LuvRPgrl:</a></b>
<i>"Fact is most States, colonies or commonwealths, however you wish to refer to them, had Legally instituted State sponsored religions. Jefferson was opposed to them, but to make the statement that the founding fathers didnt want religion in govt is easily proven false."</i></blockquote>The response was:<blockquote><b>LOki:</b>
<i>"Then prove it--with evidence rather than your wishful assertions unsupported by evidence.

While you catch up on your homework there, realize that there is a distict difference between the status of governemnt established religion prior to the revolution (colony) and after the Declaration Of Independence--most particularly after ratification of the Constitution (state).

Of course, while under English rule, the colonies had "legally instituted state sponsored religions"; you see, once a colony broke with England, the governmental establishment of England's religion was also broken. Post independence, the infrastructure of the crown remained behind, and certainly many of the states retianed the custom of taxation forthe benefit of the established church. What you'll have to demonstrate is that after the respective 13 original state joined the United States, "MOST" (your words) went and established state religions.

Regardless of how you calculate "MOST" in your hopelful search for state established religions (and whetever loose definition for "state established religion"you use), you'll note that having achieved independence after the revolution; after the first 13 states committed themselves to the union in 1788; "MOST" became 1 rather quickly (by 1790), and then none (in 1833), by the time Connecticut's church membership requirement was abolished."</i></blockquote>Then, as now, your attempt to demonstrate that state religion was a foundational element of this nation has failed. The foundational principles of this nation are at fundamental odds with Christian princples. This is a Christian nation only so far as most of it's population is, and has been Christians--as far as the government, the Constitution, and social structure are concerned, we have never been a Christian nation, we have never held to Christian principles.

[musicman]

The foundational principles of this nation are at fundamental odds with Christian princples.

Please outline,

A. the foundational principles of this nation, and

B. Christian principle,

and explain why this is so.

[LOki]

Please outline,

A. the foundational principles of this nation, and

B. Christian principle,

and explain why this is so.I have already outlined Christian princples for you (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=101842#post101842).

I'm not going to to do so again for obvious reasons. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=102515#post102515)

Also, I have already explained (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=105102#post105102)that this nation's foundational principle of freedom of religion is at odds with Christianity's fundamental exclusionary principle of religion.

[Pale Rider]

I have already outlined Christian princples for you (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=101842#post101842).

I'm not going to to do so again for obvious reasons. (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=102515#post102515)

Also, I have already expained (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showpost.php?p=105102#post105102)that this nation's foundational principle of freedom of religion is at odds with Christianity's fundamental exclusionary principle of religion.

WHAT is THAT?

[LOki]

WHAT is THAT?
Stone to death everybody who doesn't believe in Jesus. That one exactly.

[musicman]

Stone to death everybody who doesn't believe in Jesus. That one exactly.

In true LOkian fashion, you advance suicidally reckless, indefensible assertions, and offer more of the same by way of explanation. You are a clown, sir. If Alan Dershowitz himself were here, he'd beg you to STFU and stop unwittingly (or, half-wittedly) working for Christianity's cause. Please carry on - you're doing fine. The Lord works in mysterious ways.

[glockmail]

The Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our creator, and the Constition closes with "the year of our Lord". That proves that America was founded as a Christian nation. :salute:

[LOki]

In true LOkian fashion, you advance suicidally reckless, indefensible assertions, and offer more of the same by way of explanation. You are a clown, sir. If Alan Dershowitz himself were here, he'd beg you to STFU and stop unwittingly (or, half-wittedly) working for Christianity's cause. Please carry on - you're doing fine. The Lord works in mysterious ways.As usual, musicman, you just fling unsubstantiated accusations from nowhere hoping they will stick.<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>

[LOki]

The Declaration of Independence says we are endowed by our creator, and the Constition closes with "the year of our Lord". That proves that America was founded as a Christian nation. :salute:Our creator is Odin, and we dispensed with titles of nobility with the adoption of our constitution.:salute:

[musicman]

Our creator is Odin, and we dispensed with titles of nobility with the adoption of our constitution.:salute:

I would direct anyone who is genuinely curious about the religious and philosophical origins of our nation to this thread. I would call particular attention to your posts, and invite the reader to soak up the frantic desperation with which you cling to your preset conclusions - in the face of all logic, reason, and common sense. I doubt that Christianity could find a better - albeit unwitting - champion than yourself.

[LOki]

I would direct anyone who is genuinely curious about the religious and philosophical origins of our nation to this thread. I would call particular attention to your posts, and invite the reader to soak up the frantic desperation with which you cling to your preset conclusions - in the face of all logic, reason, and common sense. I doubt that Christianity could find a better - albeit unwitting - champion than yourself.

Frantic desperation? Please. Enough with your baseless accusations.

Desperate is your evasion of all logic, reason, and evidence presented that flatly refutes "your preset conclusions."

[musicman]

Frantic desperation? Please. Enough with your baseless accusations.

Desperate is your evasion of all logic, reason, and evidence presented that flatly refutes "your preset conclusions."

It's come to this - "I know you are, but what am I"?

How's the key of F# for you, LOki? Mi, mi, mi, mi, mi....

With feeling, now...

ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS - MARCHING AS TO WAR...

Pitch, LOki - watch your pitch...sing out, now - Jesus is pleased!

[LOki]

It's come to this - "I know you are, but what am I"?

How's the key of F# for you, LOki? Mi, mi, mi, mi, mi....

With feeling, now...

ONWARD CHRISTIAN SOLDIERS - MARCHING AS TO WAR...

Pitch, LOki - watch your pitch...sing out, now - Jesus is pleased!

Of course this is what is comes to. You could engage me on on evidence left by the Founders of this Nation, but then the evidence supports my argument; you could engage me on the logic, but then the logic supports my argument; you could engage me in scripture, but then again, scripture supports my argument--musicman, this transparent deflection from the issue to personal attacks upon me is your very best hand. I'm a willing player because you cannot harm me, and your efforts only highlight in stark contrast the obvious fact that you have no game.

[glockmail]

Our creator is Odin, and we dispensed with titles of nobility with the adoption of our constitution.:salute: You got blown out of this debate long ago. Your pitiful attempt at humor will not save your sorry ass now.

[LOki]

You got blown out of this debate long ago. Your pitiful attempt at humor will not save your sorry ass now.

I'm glad you can see the humor.

Just point at one instance where I was blown out of this debate--it certainly wasn't the part where you were introducing that made up quote by Patrick Henry...or did you finally decide it was John Jay?

[Pale Rider]

Just point at one instance where I was blown out of this debate

Pick a page... there's 37 of them.

[LOki]

Pick a page... there's 37 of them.Like this one? CLICKY! (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=101690#101690)

[glockmail]

I'm glad you can see the humor.

Just point at one instance where I was blown out of this debate--it certainly wasn't the part where you were introducing that made up quote by Patrick Henry...or did you finally decide it was John Jay?
That was settled long ago in post 423: "Refreshing that these liberals freely admit that they have a double standard: one for themselves, and another for those they disagree with." I'm not surprised to see you fail to realize when you've been bested.

[LOki]

That was settled long ago in post 423: "Refreshing that these liberals freely admit that they have a double standard: one for themselves, and another for those they disagree with." I'm not surprised to see you fail to realize when you've been bested."Don't be confused by my generosity to David Barton in pointing you to his site, 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</i> have said."

I'm not confused or surprised by your generosity to yourself.

[glockmail]

"Don't be confused by my generosity to David Barton in pointing you to his site, 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</i> have said."

I'm not confused or surprised by your generosity to yourself. Are you still trying to compare Thomas Paine with John Jay?

[LOki]

Are you still trying to compare Thomas Paine with John Jay?

Are you suggesting I once tried to? To what end? More character assassination attempts?

[Pale Rider]

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:

Yup. That's a good example. Because Jesus calls God "father." You know, the one he was speaking to while hanging on the cross? The one he asked "why hast thou forsaken me?" He wasn't talking to himself. He was talking to his father... God.

[LOki]

Yup. That's a good example. Because Jesus calls God "father." You know, the one he was speaking to while hanging on the cross? The one he asked "why hast thou forsaken me?" He wasn't talking to himself. He was talking to his father... God.Yup. You're a moron if you continue to demand that I'm asserting something I'm not.

[glockmail]

Are you suggesting I once tried to? To what end? .... You did back in post 424. Are you now admitting that you fucked up? Geez, it sure took you long enough.

[Pale Rider]

Yup. You're a moron if you continue to demand that I'm asserting something I'm not.

Go ahead and smoke your last rock hippie. Maybe it will ease the pain of losing this debate long ago.

[LOki]

You did back in post 424. Are you now admitting that you fucked up? Geez, it sure took you long enough.

I never made any comparisonsons between Thomas Paine and John Jay. You are the fuck up.


Go ahead and smoke your last rock hippie. Maybe it will ease the pain of losing this debate long ago.

Denial suits you, dirt-bag.

[Pale Rider]

I never made any comparisonsons between Thomas Paine and John Jay. You are the fuck up.

Denial suits you, dirt-bag.

It's plain as day light for everyone here to see, that this is the only thing on the board you engage in, only because you're an atheist. There's no amount of proof in the world that will ever convince you that America was founded as a Christian nation, even though it was, and the proof has been given to you in copious amounts. So you being this simpleton, one faceted twit, and me, being the multidimensional debater that I am, makes me a far better person than you could ever hope to be.

Say good night son. You've been spanked, now go to bed.

[LOki]

It's plain as day light for everyone here to see, that this is the only thing on the board you engage in, only because you're an atheist. There's no amount of proof in the world that will ever convince you that America was founded as a Christian nation, even though it was, and the proof has been given to you in copious amounts. So you being this simpleton, one faceted twit, and me, being the multidimensional debater that I am, makes me a far better person than you could ever hope to be.

Say good night son. You've been spanked, now go to bed.
You can repeat your bullshit PR, but repeaining it doesn't make it "proof" and doesn't make it true. You, had you ass handed to you sir.

Your dementia has gotten the best of you--have your diaper checked.

[glockmail]

You can repeat your bullshit PR, but repeaining it doesn't make it "proof" and doesn't make it true. You, had you ass handed to you sir.

Your dementia has gotten the best of you--have your diaper checked.

Since you resorted to personal attacks it is clear to all that it was your ass that was handed to you.

[LOki]

Since you resorted to personal attacks it is clear to all that it was your ass that was handed to you.

Since I resorted to personal attacks ... you sir, are clownshoes.

[glockmail]

It must suck to lose an argument on the single issue that you blog about.

[LOki]

It must suck to lose an argument on the single issue that you blog about.

Why don't you tell us what it's like?

[glockmail]

You've demostrated to everyone here that you're the expert.

[LOki]

You've demostrated to everyone here that you're the expert.

Still telling tales about others when you can't produce argument--will the predicable emoticon come next?

[Missileman]

Yes they did

Colony Denomination Disestablished1
Connecticut Congregational 1818
Georgia Church of England
Massachusetts Congregational 17802
New Brunswick Church of England
New Hampshire Congregational 1790
Newfoundland Church of England
North Carolina Church of England ≤ 1776
Nova Scotia Church of England 1850
Prince Edward Island Church of England
South Carolina Church of England
Upper Canada Church of England 1854
Virginia Church of England 1786
West Indies Church of England 1868

Note 1: In several colonies, the establishment ceased to exist in practice at the Revolution, about 1776; this is the date of legal abolition.

Note 2: Replaced by a system which required every man to belong to a church, and permitted each church to tax its members. This was not, in theory, an establishment; but was sufficiently oppressive in practice, to be abolished in 1833.


HINT: disestablished is the opposite of established. In order to disestablish something, it had to have been established in the first place, and continue to be established until disestablished. Hence, in 1776, the most of the States supported a STATE ESTABLISHED RELIGION OR CHURCH.

What does crow taste like dude? hahahhaha,,,,,,,,,BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH



Do you really expect anyone to believe that any of the signers of the COTUS went back to their state to establish the Church of England as their official state religion? The official colonial religions were already in place but went the way of the dodo shortly after the formation of the U.S.

*bump*

What's the matter laughing boy? Hard to get out another "hahahhaha,,,,,,,,,BWAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAH" with a mouthful of shit sandwich?

[Pale Rider]

I will however concede that trusting in God is more appealing to me that trusting the Federal Reserve.

Now you're thinking like our founding fathers did. :salute:

[Psychoblues]

I doubt that.


Now you're thinking like our founding fathers did. :salute:

You can't make snow cones out of desert sand either. But, you would argue that observation as well, wouldn't you, pr?

[Pale Rider]

I doubt that.

You can't make snow cones out of desert sand either. But, you would argue that observation as well, wouldn't you, pr?

You aaahh.... up for a pissing match tonight? You're sure as hell doing your best to start one.

[Psychoblues]

Following your lead, pr.


You aaahh.... up for a pissing match tonight? You're sure as hell doing your best to start one.

Have you a primrose path?

[Pale Rider]

Following your lead, pr.

No you're not.

[Psychoblues]

It's embarrassing for you I know.



No you're not.

But, keep to the subject, OK?

[Pale Rider]

It's embarrassing for you I know.

But, keep to the subject, OK?

Yeaaaaaah... keep it up. That little, "WTF... banned again," by your avatar will again be current.

[Psychoblues]

Are you saying that your little promise to me for defense of my right to speak here was just another of your lies?



Yeaaaaaah... keep it up. That little, "WTF... banned again," by your avatar will again be current.

Don't cry, pr. It's not very manly of you.

[bullypulpit]

Loki's defense of the proposition that the United States was not founded as a "Christian" nation have been thoughtful, logical and supported by evidence every step of the way. It is also correct, and no revisionist reading of history will make it otherwise. The Constitution is rooted in secular, progressive principles.

Unfortunately, no amount of argument, however cogent and logical will change the mind of religious zealots convinced of their own self-righteousness.

[glockmail]

Loki's defense of the proposition that the United States was not founded as a "Christian" nation have been thoughtful, logical and supported by evidence every step of the way. It is also correct, and no revisionist reading of history will make it otherwise. The Constitution is rooted in secular, progressive principles.

Unfortunately, no amount of argument, however cogent and logical will change the mind of religious zealots convinced of their own self-righteousness.

Since the Constitution starts with "secure the Blessings of Liberty" and ends with "the Year of our Lord", it is fairly obvious that Christianity played an important part in its creation.

Unfortunately, no amount of argument, however cogent and logical will change the mind of sec-prog zealots convinced of their own self-righteousness.
:pee:

[LOki]

Since the Constitution starts with "secure the Blessings of Liberty" and ends with "the Year of our Lord", it is fairly obvious that Christianity played an important part in its creation.

Unfortunately, no amount of argument, however cogent and logical will change the mind of sec-prog zealots convinced of their own self-righteousness.
:pee:Main Entry: spe·cious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speciousnesses)
Pronunciation: \ˈspē-shəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, visually pleasing, from Latin speciosus beautiful, plausible, from species
Date: 1513
1<i> obsolete</i> : showy
2: having deceptive attraction or allure
[B]3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistic)[<i>specious</i> reasoning]

Securing "the Blessings of Liberty" is not the same thing as securing "the Blessings of Christ", and using the idomatic convention "The Year of Our Lord" to establish the date of an event is not the same as an establisng principle.

[glockmail]

Main Entry: spe·cious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speciousnesses)
Pronunciation: \ˈspē-shəs\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, visually pleasing, from Latin speciosus beautiful, plausible, from species
Date: 1513
1<i> obsolete</i> : showy
2: having deceptive attraction or allure
[B]3: having a false look of truth or genuineness : sophistic (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophistic)[<i>specious</i> reasoning]

Securing "the Blessings of Liberty" is not the same thing as securing "the Blessings of Christ", and using the idomatic convention "The Year of Our Lord" to establish the date of an event is not the same as an establisng principle.
Careful DMP will merge these threads.

[Pale Rider]

Are you saying that your little promise to me for defense of my right to speak here was just another of your lies?

Don't cry, pr. It's not very manly of you.

So this is how you are late at night posting after you've pounded a twelver of cold ones... :cheers2:

Sober up muttonhead.

[Pale Rider]

Loki's defense of the proposition that the United States was not founded as a "Christian" nation have been thoughtful, logical and supported by evidence every step of the way. It is also correct, and no revisionist reading of history will make it otherwise. The Constitution is rooted in secular, progressive principles.

Unfortunately, no amount of argument, however cogent and logical will change the mind of religious zealots convinced of their own self-righteousness.

Yup... the founding fathers thought it would be a good JOKE to put IN GOD WE TRUST on just about everything government.

[LOki]

Yup... the founding fathers thought it would be a good JOKE to put IN GOD WE TRUST on just about everything government.Religious revisionist mythology. (http://www.allabouthistory.org/in-god-we-trust.htm)

[Pale Rider]

Religious revisionist mythology. (http://www.allabouthistory.org/in-god-we-trust.htm)
Not hardly...

The United States Declaration of Independence declares, "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" The founding fathers thought that it was self-evident (in other words, not even questionable) that humans were created by God.

[LOki]

Not hardly...

The United States Declaration of Independence declares, "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" The founding fathers thought that it was self-evident (in other words, not even questionable) that humans were created by God.I see created, and I see their Creator, but I do not see where your God is even mentioned.

[April15]

The men who framed out the constitution were very careful to not speak of God directly. Knowing the times they lived in and the persecution they fled from in England and Europe in general, marks a time when fear of a government run by overtly religious leaders caused them to remove this government from that position.

[Classact]

The men who framed out the constitution were very careful to not speak of God directly. Knowing the times they lived in and the persecution they fled from in England and Europe in general, marks a time when fear of a government run by overtly religious leaders caused them to remove this government from that position.You are soooo full of shit it flows onto your keyboard... Everyone was religious in America, the reason many came to America was to flee the Catholic Church's persecution of Protestants... Catholics didn't come to America until well after the ink on the Constitution was brittle. Why in hell would the first Congress print the American version of the King James Bible if they feared being associated with religion.

The First Amendment simply states we will not make the same mistake as Europe and enlist a flavor of Christianity in the government. We have no favors of the Protestant faiths so don't fear none has the favor of the Federal government.

[Pale Rider]

I see created, and I see their Creator, but I do not see where your God is even mentioned.

Now that's a real stretch, even for you. You know exactly what I mean, and you know exactly what is meant by it. The Father, the son, the holy ghost, all Christian.

[April15]

You are soooo full of shit it flows onto your keyboard... Everyone was religious in America, the reason many came to America was to flee the Catholic Church's persecution of Protestants... Catholics didn't come to America until well after the ink on the Constitution was brittle. Why in hell would the first Congress print the American version of the King James Bible if they feared being associated with religion.

The First Amendment simply states we will not make the same mistake as Europe and enlist a flavor of Christianity in the government. We have no favors of the Protestant faiths so don't fear none has the favor of the Federal government.

I fear it is you who's bias is showing. The Spanish were what? Atheists? The French were what? Agnostic? And of course there are the old Irish boores. We know they are just trashy people, Catholic but trashy.
That religion played a big part of human life in 1620 up until 1950's doesn't make this a nation of god but a nation that is aware of a creator. I personally don't go with a creator but am willing to forgo that for the sake of this discussion. In those times the panacea of hope religion supported gave many the will to go on. That mind control becomes very evident in the slavery issue.

[LOki]

Now that's a real stretch, even for you. You know exactly what I mean, and you know exactly what is meant by it. The Father, the son, the holy ghost, all Christian.
No mention of The Father, The Son, or The Holy Ghost. No mention of Christ either. No Christianity referenced. Just "Creator"--patently and purposefully ambiguous. Not Christian.

[glockmail]

No mention of The Father, The Son, or The Holy Ghost. No mention of Christ either. No Christianity referenced. Just "Creator"--patently and purposefully ambiguous. Not Christian. In your opinion who were they referring to?

[Pale Rider]

In your opinion who were they referring to?

No shit. His "DUH" act is tenuous.

[Classact]

I fear it is you who's bias is showing. The Spanish were what? Atheists?The Spanish are the folks that cause all Puerto Ricans and Mexicans to have crosses and Virgin Mary necklaces not to mention all the Missions in Mexico and CA.
The French were what? Agnostic? French are mixed, read about the Reign of Terror and the aftermath. The south of France is very religious, many escaped to Canada.
And of course there are the old Irish boores. We know they are just trashy people, Catholic but trashy. They weren't around in the 1700's in America.

That religion played a big part of human life in 1620 up until 1950's doesn't make this a nation of god but a nation that is aware of a creator. I personally don't go with a creator but am willing to forgo that for the sake of this discussion. In those times the panacea of hope religion supported gave many the will to go on. That mind control becomes very evident in the slavery issue. America is still an overwhelmingly a nation of Christians. It went down from 99.9 to maybe 87%. Again you are shooting blanks and have no idea what you are talking about as it relates to religion at the time of the US Constitution foundation. I suggest you Google "The Great Awakening" and then quote something from there that said the Founders should fear being associated with religion.

[Missileman]

No shit. His "DUH" act is tenuous.

If they had been speaking specifically about the Christian god, they would have said, "We are all created equal and we are endowed by OUR creator with certain inalienable rights.

[glockmail]

If they had been speaking specifically about the Christian god, they would have said, "We are all created equal and we are endowed by OUR creator with certain inalienable rights.:lame2:

[April15]

The Spanish are the folks that cause all Puerto Ricans and Mexicans to have crosses and Virgin Mary necklaces not to mention all the Missions in Mexico and CA. French are mixed, read about the Reign of Terror and the aftermath. The south of France is very religious, many escaped to Canada. They weren't around in the 1700's in America.
America is still an overwhelmingly a nation of Christians. It went down from 99.9 to maybe 87%. Again you are shooting blanks and have no idea what you are talking about as it relates to religion at the time of the US Constitution foundation. I suggest you Google "The Great Awakening" and then quote something from there that said the Founders should fear being associated with religion.

I would suggest you learn about history and religion. From your position it is obvious you know very little about the era you are discussing. Or you can't understand English. Either way I am done with this thread.

[Pale Rider]

If they had been speaking specifically about the Christian god, they would have said, "We are all created equal and we are endowed by OUR creator with certain inalienable rights.

Another "duh"... :talk2hand:

[Kathianne]

Another "duh"... :talk2hand:

I have to agree with you here.

[Missileman]

Another "duh"... :talk2hand:

"Nuh uh"...is that your best argument? They could also have said THE creator, which would have made the reference specific.

[glockmail]

"Nuh uh"...is that your best argument? They could also have said THE creator, which would have made the reference specific.
Your argument apears to be based on your misunderstanding of the writing style. Its dumb.

[Missileman]

I have to agree with you here.

Is English your second language? I'd expect better from a teacher. "All men" doesn't specify Christian, so the "their" doesn't either.

[Kathianne]

"Nuh uh"...is that your best argument? They could also have said THE creator, which would have made the reference specific.

A creator is enough. Bottom line my take, the framers overall, not unanimously believed there was a 'creator.' That 'creator', that some of them allowed, conferred certain rights upon men, not just in the US, but amongst mankind. They enumerated those they were aware of, acknowledging there were more.

Then they sat down and did the best they could to make that argument.

One of their points was that the 'state' should not coerce anyone into believing in any god. That doesn't mean that the citizens had to 'shut up' about their 'god/s' whoever they might be. It was a directive to the state, not a group or individual.

[Kathianne]

Is English your second language? I'd expect better from a teacher. "All men" doesn't specify Christian, so the "their" doesn't either.

I made a grammar mistake? Oh my!

[Missileman]

A creator is enough. Bottom line my take, the framers overall, not unanimously believed their was a 'creator.' That 'creator' allowed certain right upon men, not just in the US, but amongst mankind. They enumerated those they were aware of, acknowledging there were more.

Then they sat down and did the best they could to make that argument.

One of their points was that the 'state' should not coerce anyone into believing in any god. That doesn't mean that the citizens had to 'shut up' about their 'god/s' whoever they might be. It was a directive to the state, not a group or individual.

There's no argument that the majority of human beings have believed in gods. That's not really the crux of this thread though. The argument is whether a government of 3 branches with checks and balances was drawn from the pages of the OT and NT.

[Missileman]

I made a grammar mistake? Oh my!

Not a mistake in grammar, a mistake in logic.

[Kathianne]

There's no argument that the majority of human beings have believed in gods. That's not really the crux of this thread though. The argument is whether a government of 3 branches with checks and balances was drawn from the pages of the OT and NT.

Then I was mistaken. I thought the argument was whether or not religion played a role in the founding of the democratic republic. Sorry.

[Pale Rider]

"Nuh uh"...is that your best argument? They could also have said THE creator, which would have made the reference specific.

OK mister clinton... so it matters what the definition of IS is... pphht... :talk2hand: - - - :lame2:

When you people get desperate, I swear, you'll resort to anything, no matter how ridiculous.

[Missileman]

OK mister clinton... so it matters what the definition of IS is... pphht... :talk2hand: - - - :lame2:

When you people get desperate, I swear, you'll resort to anything, no matter how ridiculous.

It's called English. It's our language and words have meaning. Do you really think Jefferson spent weeks crafting the DOI to have it say something other than exactly what he intended?

The desperation is all yours. I have only to hold up the constitution to prove that our government is secular. There's not a single thing religious or Christian about it. 1860's monetary mottos doesn't change that fact.

[Pale Rider]

The desperation is all yours. I have only to hold up the constitution to prove that our government is secular. There's not a single thing religious or Christian about it. 1860's monetary mottos doesn't change that fact.

'Fraid not. Our founders of this nation were deeply religious. You ranting that they weren't don't mean shit.

Every facet of our new nation was in one way or another influenced by Christianity.

I'm sorry for you that you're Godless and lonely, and want everybody else to be too. Maybe a trip to church would help you.

[LOki]

In your opinion who were they referring to?Their Creator just as it is written; such that Hindus could be endowed by Their Creator..., and Muslims could be endowed by Their Creator..., and Bhuddists could be endowed by Their Creator..., and Zoroastrians could be endowed by Their Creator..., and Atheists could be endowed by Their Creator (whatever that means)..., as well as Christians and Their Creator--despite the Christian God's injunction against believing in other gods, subscribing to other religions, and disbeleiving in Jesus.

Missileman has it right; if they were going to be purposefully Christian about it, they would have said "...endowed by our Creator...", or "...endowed by the creative power of Christ...", or "...endowed by Pale Rider's Creator...", but unfortunately for your argument, no such phrasing was included. Sorry about your luck.

[glockmail]

Their Creator just as it is written; such that Hindus could be endowed by Their Creator..., and Muslims could be endowed by Their Creator..., and Bhuddists could be endowed by Their Creator..., and Zoroastrians could be endowed by Their Creator..., and Atheists could be endowed by Their Creator (whatever that means)..., as well as Christians and Their Creator--despite the Christian God's injunction against believing in other gods, subscribing to other religions, and disbeleiving in Jesus.

Missileman has it right; if they were going to be purposefully Christian about it, they would have said "...endowed by our Creator...", or "...endowed by the creative power of Christ...", or "...endowed by Pale Rider's Creator...", but unfortunately for your argument, no such phrasing was included. Sorry about your luck.

This is really a silly argument.

Word have meaning, so let’s look at them. The DOI says that "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..."

1. Capitalization is important, in that it indicates a worldly importance, as in the examples given for Rights, the significance of the Creator, and His relationship with the species of Men.
2. The indictment portions of the Declaration are aimed squarely at the present King of Great Britain, who himself claimed to be born to be a ruler of other men. The quoted opening passage states that his claim is self-evidently false.
3. Since “all Men” are created equal, there is no implication of other creators, as these would surely create men who are different. There is simply the Creator of Men. And it is obvious, as Christians, that the Founders were referring to their God.
4. As Christians, the Founders simply did not recognize other gods but their own.

[diuretic]

So a group of Christians (or Christian-influenced men) worked on the philosophical underpinnings of your nation. It's obvious though that while they may have been Christians they rejected the notion of theocracy, they rejected the terrible ties in Britain between the Church of England (the state religion invented by Henry VIII after his big blue with Rome) and the the monarchy, they didn't want your constitution to be built on religious principles but to be built on secular principles which allowed anyone and everyone the freedom to practice their religion but also to be free from the notion of a state religion. I've said it before but I'll say it again, they were men of immense vision and near genius.

[glockmail]

So a group of Christians (or Christian-influenced men) worked on the philosophical underpinnings of your nation. It's obvious though that while they may have been Christians they rejected the notion of theocracy, they rejected the terrible ties in Britain between the Church of England (the state religion invented by Henry VIII after his big blue with Rome) and the the monarchy, they didn't want your constitution to be built on religious principles but to be built on secular principles which allowed anyone and everyone the freedom to practice their religion but also to be free from the notion of a state religion. I've said it before but I'll say it again, they were men of immense vision and near genius. You are correct with everything except this conclusion. The Founders designed this "experiment" based on sound Christian principles.

[Classact]

I would suggest you learn about history and religion. From your position it is obvious you know very little about the era you are discussing. Or you can't understand English. Either way I am done with this thread.Please present some facts that prove I'm wrong and you are correct.

Some of the first explorers of the new world were in fact from Holland looking for a shortcut to Asia and these folks were not religious. Columbus and the Spaniards spread religion all over the Caribbean and Mexico. However, the English and German folks that made up the majority of the population created the original colonies. The majority of these folks came to the new world because of events that happened much earlier when the Catholic Church was weakened and the numerous Protestant denominations were created. As a result of the weaker Catholic Church their contract with the King(s) resulted in higher taxation and suppression of the average citizen to support the former rich lifestyle of the Church and the King(s). During the Age of Enlightenment also know as the clipping of the angle wings in Western Europe the Catholic Church was demonized along with their ordained Kings. Religious persecution resulted and the Protestant denominations and former Catholics that worshiped God exited to Canada and the American colonies. There were a large portion of those exiting that were poor and they paid for passage in trade for work contracts labeled as Indentured Servants where they worked for wealthy land owners for several years to repay the crossing to the new world... This group was significant as the slaves and was mentioned in the US Constitution as to their rights.

Again, Google The Great Awakening and then open an encyclopedia to colonization of America and you will find that the above is, in fact true.

[diuretic]

You are correct with everything except this conclusion. The Founders designed this "experiment" based on sound Christian principles.

Which principles were they?

[Missileman]

'Fraid not. Our founders of this nation were deeply religious. You ranting that they weren't don't mean shit.

Every facet of our new nation was in one way or another influenced by Christianity.

I'm sorry for you that you're Godless and lonely, and want everybody else to be too. Maybe a trip to church would help you.

You have a problem reading apparently. I've never said the founders weren't religious, let alone rant about it. Wow...you just LIED!

All you have to do is quote that part of the Bible that deals with a 3-branch government with checks and balances or a democratic republic, and you win. Otherwise, you've got no case.

[Classact]

As long as man believes in something, a Supreme Being, that is more powerful and to whom we will some day answer then the rights we associate with that being cannot be changed by man nor governments of men without challenge. This is the basic premise of the US Constitution. God gave man inalienable rights so that when men try to take away those rights the governed have a legitimate right (duty) to act to re-establish those God given rights.
Men do not grant rights. Rights are inherited upon birth. We are all the protector of out God given rights. That is to say, the collective insures that a few men do not abuse we give them when we elect them to power. Unfortunately, gain and corruption sway our politicians and special interest groups to game the system to keep them in power. That is why we need to get rid of all of the politicians in one swoop to send a clear message that we are watching and we do care about our Constitution and that it be keep intact and followed as it was written and intended.

[glockmail]

Which principles were they?
Justice, order, and absolute morality.

[LOki]

This is really a silly argument.It can't possibly be sillier than <i>"Capitalization is important, in that it indicates a worldly importance,..."</i>


Word have meaning, so let’s look at them. The DOI says that "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..."

1. Capitalization is important, in that it indicates a worldly importance, as in the examples given for Rights, the significance of the Creator, and His relationship with the species of Men.Allright. I'm game for this moonbat theorizing of yours. For the moment, I'll accept this capitalization premise of yours and then point out that in the preamble, such capitalization places; Course, Laws, Nature, Nature's God, Creator, Rights, Life, Liberty, Happiness, Form of Government, Right of the People, Government, Governments, Object, Despotism, Government, Guards, Colonies, Systems of Government, King of Great Britain, Tyranny, States, and Facts, all together in the exact same relationship of worldly importance to man, according to you, as Christ. Nice job heretic.


2. The indictment portions of the Declaration are aimed squarely at the present King of Great Britain, who himself claimed to be born to be a ruler of other men. The quoted opening passage states that his claim is self-evidently false.The King of Great Britain was the rightful King of of A Christian Nation under the Christian principles of a Christian nation. Not a single indictment listed claimed he was otherwise. Each indictment was against those measures taken agianst soverigns who claimed authority after the example set by the King of Kings, and the logical progression that follows from such Divine Right to rule men.


3. Since “all Men” are created equal, there is no implication of other creators, as these would surely create men who are different. There is simply the Creator of Men. And it is obvious, as Christians, that the Founders were referring to their God.
4. As Christians, the Founders simply did not recognize other gods but their own.Although it is likely that the Founding Fathers shared a faith very similar to yours in many respects, it does not neccessarily follow that the Founding Fathers shared in your sanctimonious close-mindedness about the faiths of others while while authoring our nation's founding documents.

[Hagbard Celine]

This is really a silly argument.

Word have meaning, so let’s look at them. The DOI says that "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..."

1. Capitalization is important, in that it indicates a worldly importance, as in the examples given for Rights, the significance of the Creator, and His relationship with the species of Men.
2. The indictment portions of the Declaration are aimed squarely at the present King of Great Britain, who himself claimed to be born to be a ruler of other men. The quoted opening passage states that his claim is self-evidently false.
3. Since “all Men” are created equal, there is no implication of other creators, as these would surely create men who are different. There is simply the Creator of Men. And it is obvious, as Christians, that the Founders were referring to their God.
4. As Christians, the Founders simply did not recognize other gods but their own.

(shrug) Too bad the DOI isn't the Constitution. :dunno: It isn't what anyone looks to for Constitutional LAW. For LAW, we look to the Constitution itself. And it's fairly obvious to anyone with a brain that the first amendment implicitly calls for secular government. You're WRONG.

[Classact]

I posted this link on my thread US Constitution Secular or Judeo-Christian values that explains capitalism and the Protestant faith and it is a good read. Look at the historian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Beard

[glockmail]

It can't possibly be sillier than <i>"Capitalization is important, in that it indicates a worldly importance,..."</i>

Allright. I'm game for this moonbat theorizing of yours. For the moment, I'll accept this capitalization premise of yours and then point out that in the preamble, such capitalization places; Course, Laws, Nature, Nature's God, Creator, Rights, Life, Liberty, Happiness, Form of Government, Right of the People, Government, Governments, Object, Despotism, Government, Guards, Colonies, Systems of Government, King of Great Britain, Tyranny, States, and Facts, [1]all together in the exact same relationship of worldly importance to man, according to you, as Christ. [2]Nice job heretic.

[3]The King of Great Britain was the rightful King of of A Christian Nation under the Christian principles of a Christian nation. Not a single indictment listed claimed he was otherwise. Each indictment was against those measures taken agianst soverigns who claimed authority after the example set by the King of Kings, and the logical progression that follows from such Divine Right to rule men.

Although it is likely that the Founding Fathers shared a faith very similar to yours in many respects, it does not neccessarily follow that the Founding Fathers shared in your [2,4]sanctimonious close-mindedness about the faiths of others while while authoring our nation's founding documents.

1. I never claimed exact same relationship.
2. Perhaps if you took a less condescending attitude our debates wouldn’t degrade like they have previously.
3. The King was ruler by birth. His ancestry won that right by being superior warriors. The Church of England was created as an attempt to legitimize the Kingdom; it was a bastardization of Christianity. The Declaration that all Men are created equal is a direct attack on the King’s claim.
4. The Christian faith dictates recognition of a one true God, as well as respect for other’s beliefs. There is nothing sanctimonious about that.

[glockmail]

(shrug) Too bad the DOI isn't the Constitution. :dunno: It isn't what anyone looks to for Constitutional LAW. For LAW, we look to the Constitution itself. And it's fairly obvious to anyone with a brain that the first amendment implicitly calls for secular government. You're WRONG.

Assuming that to be true for a moment, the discussion here is about the founding of this nation. Are you claiming that the Declaration of Independence is not a Founding document?

[LOki]

1. I never claimed exact same relationship.Yet you're the one making the Capitalization argument, and you're the one who said it was important, and <i>"...that it indicates a worldly importance, as in the examples given for Rights, the significance of the Creator, and His relationship with the species of Men."</i> That's all you pal.


2. Perhaps if you took a less condescending attitude our debates wouldn’t degrade like they have previously.While your're scolding me, let me point out that you're the one who started off with calling my observation that the Founders purposfully left room for all faiths, including those not Christian, to claim that Their Creators endowed them with inalienable rights, was (and I quote) "silly".


3. The King was ruler by birth. His ancestry won that right by being superior warriors. The Church of England was created as an attempt to legitimize the Kingdom; it was a bastardization of Christianity. The Declaration that all Men are created equal is a direct attack on the King’s claim.In case you failed to read the Bible. Jesus is King by virtue of His birth as well--He certainly wasn't elected. That's the Christian foundation of the Divine Right of Rule. You don't get to elect leaders of men--they are born. Where they are not born to rule, they are chosen by Divine Might--how did you put it?--"by being superior warriors." God protects the righteous; might makes right.

Yet that's all beside the actual point--The Church of England was not even mentioned in the DOI. The King's relationship to that Church was not mentioned. No were any mentions made of the King violating God's Commandments, or the Laws of Moses, or any other scriptual injunctions against the actions of the King (though one could surely argue he had)--all of them were levied as offenses to reason--human reason; offenses to humanity. This humanity was presented </b><i>independent</i></b> of faith to a purpose, glockmail. I'm not saying it was to deny Christianity, but I AM saying it was done despite their Christianity.

We are a Constitutional Republic, our foundational document is our constitution; surely such serious Christians, with such serious Christian intent, to found a seriously Christian nation, on Christian princinples would just once, clearly and unambiguously, have put in the Constitution something like "...because that's what Jesus would do, and that's what we're all about." You and Pale Rider can go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, about how TOATALLY CHRISTIAN these guys were, but through all that, with every single opportunity they had to affirm your argument (and there were many) that this is a Christian Nation, they never did--why no mention of Christ?


4. The Christian faith dictates recognition of a one true God,...Explain that one to Pale Rider; he's a Christian with three. :D


...as well as respect for other’s beliefs.Not while being commanded to not have other Gods before Jesus they don't; not while stoning (or whatever punishment they've unilaterlally placed in it's stead) unbelievers to death (or whatever) they don't. There is zero respect there, just as there is zero respect for other faiths in the statment, <i>"As Christians, the Founders simply did not recognize other gods but their own."</i>


There is nothing sanctimonious about that.Riiiiight. ;)

[Hagbard Celine]

Assuming that to be true for a moment, the discussion here is about the founding of this nation. Are you claiming that the Declaration of Independence is not a Founding document?

Nope, not claiming that at all. I'm saying the language in the first amendment is crystal clear. It's obvious that the founders intended for this nation to be home to multiple religions because they explicitly forbade the government from respecting an establishment of religion and from interfering with the free exercise thereof.
If you're applying the label "Christian Nation" in the same sense as if I said I live in a "Black" or "White" part of town, you'd be correct. The founders and most of the settlers here at the time of the Revolution were mostly Christians. But trying to prove that the founders had any intent to establish this nation as "Christian" is pretty stupid considering that the wording of the first amendment flatly refutes that claim.

[glockmail]

[1]Yet you're the one making the Capitalization argument, and you're the one who said it was important, and <i>"...that it indicates a worldly importance, as in the examples given for Rights, the significance of the Creator, and His relationship with the species of Men."</i> That's all you pal.

[2]While your're scolding me, let me point out that you're the one who started off with calling my observation that the Founders purposfully left room for all faiths, including those not Christian, to claim that Their Creators endowed them with inalienable rights, was (and I quote) "silly".

[3]In case you failed to read the Bible. Jesus is King by virtue of His birth as well--He certainly wasn't elected. That's the Christian foundation of the Divine Right of Rule. You don't get to elect leaders of men--they are born. Where they are not born to rule, they are chosen by Divine Might--how did you put it?--"by being superior warriors." God protects the righteous; might makes right.

[4]Yet that's all beside the actual point--The Church of England was not even mentioned in the DOI. The King's relationship to that Church was not mentioned. No were any mentions made of the King violating God's Commandments, or the Laws of Moses, or any other scriptual injunctions against the actions of the King (though one could surely argue he had)--all of them were levied as offenses to reason--human reason; offenses to humanity. This humanity was presented </b><i>independent</i></b> of faith to a purpose, glockmail. I'm not saying it was to deny Christianity, but I AM saying it was done despite their Christianity.

[5]We are a Constitutional Republic, our foundational document is our constitution; surely such serious Christians, with such serious Christian intent, to found a seriously Christian nation, on Christian princinples would just once, clearly and unambiguously, have put in the Constitution something like "...because that's what Jesus would do, and that's what we're all about." You and Pale Rider can go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, about how TOATALLY CHRISTIAN these guys were, but through all that, with every single opportunity they had to affirm your argument (and there were many) that this is a Christian Nation, they never did--why no mention of Christ?

…
1. Two things of worldly importance do not imply equality.
2. Calling your argument silly, which it is, is not equivalent as you calling me a heretic.
3. Jesus is the only King that Christians recognize. In fact, “we have no King but Jesus” was a battle cry of the revolutionaries.
4. The King of Great Britain did indeed violate Christian ethics and principles. The indictment is full of examples.
5. The DOI is the Founding document. The Constitution is an attempt to codify its ideals.

[glockmail]

Nope, not claiming that at all. I'm saying the language in the first amendment is crystal clear. It's obvious that the founders intended for this nation to be home to multiple religions because they explicitly forbade the government from respecting an establishment of religion and from interfering with the free exercise thereof.
If you're applying the label "Christian Nation" in the same sense as if I said I live in a "Black" or "White" part of town, you'd be correct. The founders and most of the settlers here at the time of the Revolution were mostly Christians. But trying to prove that the founders had any intent to establish this nation as "Christian" is pretty stupid considering that the wording of the first amendment flatly refutes that claim. the 1st Ammendment confirms freedom of religion not freedom from religion. And being based on Christianity, the nation is tolerant of other religions and atheists.

[LOki]

1. Two things of worldly importance do not imply equality.More than two items are capitalized in the DOI, and your argument from capitalization does indeed imply equal importance for all those things capitalized.


2. Calling your argument silly, which it is, is not equivalent as you calling me a heretic.I didn't assert equivilancy. I was just pointing out that you shouldn't be scolding me for being condescending (a term which I'm sure you've misused) right after having off-handedly dismissed, without any valid counter argument, my valid observation as being "silly."


3. Jesus is the only King that Christians recognize. In fact, “we have no King but Jesus” was a battle cry of the revolutionaries.Irrelevent, and untrue. Not the battle cry business--they of course screamed all kinds of stuff. Christians, in fact, recognized kings other than Jesus--Kings are the only legitimate rulers of men as far as Christianity is concerned. There are no provisions for Presidents under Christianity, or Senators, or Congressmen, and just forget about electing these guys; but Kings? Certainly. Jesus is the King of those Kings however.


4. The King of Great Britain did indeed violate Christian ethics and principles. The indictment is full of examples.It's not. Not one mention of any of those crimes as a violation of Christian ethics or principle--not one instance. I'm not doubting you can argue they were such violations, but they were not presented as such, and they had every opportunity to be.


5. The DOI is the Founding document. The Constitution is an attempt to codify its ideals.The United States Constitution is unarguably the authoritativly foundational document of this county, bar none. Yet, lets entertain your premise glockmail, and assert that the Declaration Of Independence is the Founding Document of this Country--surely such serious Christians, with such serious Christian intent, to found a seriously Christian nation, on Christian princinples would just once, <b>clearly and unambiguously</b>, have put in the Declaration Of Independence something like "...because that's what Jesus would do, and that's what we're all about." You can go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, about how TOATALLY CHRISTIAN these guys were, but through all that, with every single opportunity they had to affirm your argument (and there were many) that this is a Christian Nation, they never did--why not one mention of Christ?

[LOki]

the 1st Ammendment confirms freedom of religion not freedom from religion.Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion--paricularly freedom from those religions whose adherents are enjoined to kill all non-believers.


And being based on Christianity, the nation is tolerant of other religions and atheists.Chrisianitly is unequivocally intolerant of other religions and atheists.

[diuretic]

Justice, order, and absolute morality.

Are those exclusively Christian principles?

[glockmail]

[1]More than two items are capitalized in the DOI, and your argument from capitalization does indeed imply equal importance for all those things capitalized.

[2]I didn't assert equivilancy. I was just pointing out that you shouldn't be scolding me for being condescending (a term which I'm sure you've misused) right after having off-handedly dismissed, without any valid counter argument, my valid observation as being "silly."

[3]Irrelevent, and untrue. Not the battle cry business--they of course screamed all kinds of stuff. Christians, in fact, recognized kings other than Jesus--Kings are the only legitimate rulers of men as far as Christianity is concerned. There are no provisions for Presidents under Christianity, or Senators, or Congressmen, and just forget about electing these guys; but Kings? Certainly. Jesus is the King of those Kings however.

[4]It's not. Not one mention of any of those crimes as a violation of Christian ethics or principle--not one instance. I'm not doubting you can argue they were such violations, but they were not presented as such, and they had every opportunity to be.

[5]The United States Constitution is unarguably the authoritativly foundational document of this county, bar none. Yet, lets entertain your premise glockmail, and assert that the Declaration Of Independence is the Founding Document of this Country--surely such serious Christians, with such serious Christian intent, to found a seriously Christian nation, on Christian princinples would just once, <b>clearly and unambiguously</b>, have put in the Declaration Of Independence something like "...because that's what Jesus would do, and that's what we're all about." You can go on, and on, and on, and on, and on, about how TOATALLY CHRISTIAN these guys were, but through all that, with every single opportunity they had to affirm your argument (and there were many) that this is a Christian Nation, they never did--why not one mention of Christ?

[6]
Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion--paricularly freedom from those religions whose adherents are enjoined to kill all non-believers.

[7]Chrisianitly is unequivocally intolerant of other religions and atheists.

1. No.
2. A valid argument was given in the same post.
3. Let me clarify: The Founders did not recognize worldly kings as legit.
4. Repeated injuries and usurpations are most certainly violations of Christian principles.
5. “In the year of our Lord”.
6. You appear to be discussing a different country. Iran, perhaps?
7. Perhaps you can offer an example to prove your theory.

[glockmail]

Are those exclusively Christian principles?No.

[LOki]

1. No.Yeah.


2. A valid argument was given in the same post.No. Saying it's "silly" is not a valid argument; "Capitalization" is no refutation; the King of Great Britain is irrellevent to the point I made; being made different does not mean made unequal by any means; and the Founders certainly recognized the gods, as well as the faiths of others, despite their Christianity--you gave no valid argument.


3. Let me clarify: The Founders did not recognize worldly kings as legit.Nonsense.


4. Repeated injuries and usurpations are most certainly violations of Christian principles.I am not arguing otherwise. They just were not presented as violations of Christian principles in the DOI.


5. “In the year of our Lord”.You wish to fall back on the English translation of the idomatic use of A.D. in the date? This is the Christian Foundation? :lol: BRAVO! :clap:


6. You appear to be discussing a different country. Iran, perhaps?No. This country. You see, we have freedom of religion, and we recocognize that it includes freedom from religion--and that's why the types from the middle eastern rock chucking traditions aren't empowered to practice their pitching arm so freely in the name of their sadistic God.


7. Perhaps you can offer an example to prove your theory.First commandment; then, Deuteronomy 13:4-10.

[LOki]

Are those exclusively Christian principles?They're not even Christian principles.

[Hagbard Celine]

the 1st Ammendment confirms freedom of religion not freedom from religion. And being based on Christianity, the nation is tolerant of other religions and atheists.

You make no sense. Christianity isn't tolerant of other religions. If you adhere to Christianity, the ONLY way to heaven is through Jesus. The nation was founded as a secular Republic. It's written very clearly in the First Amendment. Calling me an "atheist" and pretending you're better than me because you waste your time at Church on Sunday mornings doesn't change that FACT.

[diuretic]

No.

So can I claim that the US was founded on non-Christian principles?

[diuretic]

They're not even Christian principles.

True enough.

[glockmail]

…

[1] No. Saying it's "silly" …..

[2] I am not arguing otherwise. They just were not presented as violations of Christian principles in the DOI.
…..
[3] First commandment; then, Deuteronomy 13:4-10.

1. Now you’ve done it. Not only is your argument silly, but you are being silly as well.
2. Because the Founders were politicians with Christian backgrounds, not theologians.
3. Both your examples are from the Torah, several thousand years before Christ.

[glockmail]

You make no sense. Christianity isn't tolerant of other religions. If you adhere to Christianity, the ONLY way to heaven is through Jesus. The nation was founded as a secular Republic. It's written very clearly in the First Amendment. Calling me an "atheist" and pretending you're better than me because you waste your time at Church on Sunday mornings doesn't change that FACT. Funny I don't see Christians cutting the heads off infadels. Maybe I should get out more instead of "wasting my time" learning about ethical behavior.

[glockmail]

So can I claim that the US was founded on non-Christian principles? Only if the truth means nothing to you.

[diuretic]

glock, are you in for the chief of the non-sequiturs prize? :laugh2:

[glockmail]

glock, are you in for the chief of the non-sequiturs prize? :laugh2: No, that award has already been given out to another poster.

[diuretic]

No, that award has already been given out to another poster.

Okay then, but you gave it the good old college try, better luck next time :coffee:

[glockmail]

Touche. :finger3:

[LOki]

1. Now you’ve done it. Not only is your argument silly, but you are being silly as well.Explain. Those are the "arguments" you presented.

2. Because the Founders were politicians with Christian backgrounds, not theologians.They had to be theologians to be Christian enough to claim, in the DOI, that the King violated his Christian responsibilities? That's your argument? Nicely played. :laugh2:

3. Both your examples are from the Torah, several thousand years before Christ.Explain how the Torah predates God.

[Hobbit]

Explain how the Torah predates God.

Let me preface by saying I'm not jumping into the argument, just clarifying.

The Torah predates the birth of Jesus Christ and the founding of the Christian religion. It is considered important to Christians, but many of the laws and doctrines found within were overwritten, completed, negated, or otherwise changed by Christ. Therefore, any serious discussion on Christian laws and morals should attempt to deal exclusively with things found in the New Testament. While some things in the Old Testament and almost certainly still in effect, anything not specifically mentioned in the New Testament is questionable and requires a less concrete 'common sense' approach.

Ok, carry on.

[glockmail]

[1]Explain. Those are the "arguments" you presented.
[2]They had to be theologians to be Christian enough to claim, in the DOI, that the King violated his Christian responsibilities? That's your argument? Nicely played. :laugh2:
[3]Explain how the Torah predates God.

1. No. The silly argument was presented my Missleman, post 599. You came in for sloppy seconds, post 615.
2. I said that they were not theologians. Important word: not.
3. What I inferred was that the Torah predates the Christ. I thought that would have been obvious.

[LOki]

1. No. The silly argument was presented my Missleman, post 599. You came in for sloppy seconds, post 615.My point stands.

2. I said that they were not theologians. Important word: not.Note my use of the question mark; just as important.

3. What I inferred was that the Torah predates the Christ. I thought that would have been obvious.Are you about to assert that for Christians, Christ is NOT God?

[LOki]

Let me preface by saying I'm not jumping into the argument, just clarifying.

The Torah predates the birth of Jesus Christ and the founding of the Christian religion. It is considered important to Christians, but many of the laws and doctrines found within were overwritten, completed, negated, or otherwise changed by Christ. Therefore, any serious discussion on Christian laws and morals should attempt to deal exclusively with things found in the New Testament. While some things in the Old Testament and almost certainly still in effect, anything not specifically mentioned in the New Testament is questionable and requires a less concrete 'common sense' approach.

Ok, carry on.Actually, this not so. Christ fulfills the laws of the Old Testament--most particularly those set by God, for indeed Christ is God. It's fair to argue that Christ set us free from bullshit religious dogma, and other oppressive aritfices of men--but you can't argue that God fucked up in the beginning and had to fix his fuck-ups. Jesus is God, and God got His laws right from the very beginning, and they did not need altering or adjusting, and were not altered or adjusted by Jesus.

[Hagbard Celine]

Funny I don't see Christians cutting the heads off infadels. Maybe I should get out more instead of "wasting my time" learning about ethical behavior.

You don't have to behead people to be intolerant of other beliefs and philosophies. Christians believe that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you'll go to hell. Period. That leaves little room for any other kind of belief system doesn't it? It's the built-in supremacist factor of nearly every religion. "If you don't believe exactly what I believe you'll burn in torment for eternity." That's not quite the pinnacle of open-mindedness.

[manu1959]

You don't have to behead people to be intolerant of other beliefs and philosophies. Christians believe that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you'll go to hell. Period. That leaves little room for any other kind of belief system doesn't it? It's the built-in supremacist factor of nearly every religion. "If you don't believe exactly what I believe you'll burn in torment for eternity." That's not quite the pinnacle of open-mindedness.

hell is a choice then....are you not pro choice?

[Abbey Marie]

You don't have to behead people to be intolerant of other beliefs and philosophies. Christians believe that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you'll go to hell. Period. That leaves little room for any other kind of belief system doesn't it? It's the built-in supremacist factor of nearly every religion. "If you don't believe exactly what I believe you'll burn in torment for eternity." That's not quite the pinnacle of open-mindedness.

You appear to be drawing some kind of moral equivalency between taking one's head off, and making statements that one must be saved to go to Heaven.

Let me ask you these questons: Why do you care if Christians speak about their beliefs? You can easily ignore the message if you don't like it, can't you? Or is someone tying you down and forcing you to listen to it? Or forcing you to take some kind of oath that you believe it too?

Don't you often post that we should allow anything on the air waves, and if we find it offensive, just turn it off? And anyone who dares to complain about it is a whiner? Why would you not extend this laissez faire attitude to evangelism?

Or could you be wondering whether there is any truth to the message, and it makes you uncomfortable? ;)

[Hagbard Celine]

You appear to be drawing some kind of moral equivalency between taking one's head off, and making statements that one must be saved to go to Heaven.

Let me ask you these questons: Why do you care if Christians speak about their beliefs? You can easily ignore the message if you don't like it, can't you? Or is someone tying you down and forcing you to lsten to it? Or forcing you to take some kind of oath that you believe it too?

Don't you often post that we should allow anything on the air waves, and if we find it offensive, just turn it off? And anyone who dares to complain about it is a whiner? Why would you not extend this laissez faire attitute to evangelism?

Or could you be wondering whether there is any truth to the message, and it makes you uncomfortable? ;)

NO. I'm not making any "moral equivalency." Give me a break. Stop jumping to the most extreme side of the spectrum that you can every time I say something. I'm setting glockmail straight--apparently he thinks the only way to show intolerance of other's beliefs is to behead someone. This is obviously false. It's ONE way to show intolerance.
I don't care if Christians speak about their beliefs. In fact, I encourage them to do so. What I don't like is when they want to apply those beliefs to everyone else or make those beliefs law.
Laws should be secular in a pluralistic nation like ours, otherwise they're destined to infringe on the freedoms of others. It's not any one religious group's job to dictate the code of conduct for everybody else. If you follow a religious philosophy, fine. Follow it--I hope it works out for you. All I ask is that you do not rain on my parade or insult me and what I think is right by acting like I'm a "bad" person for not adopting your beliefs.

[glockmail]

My point stands.
Note my use of the question mark; just as important.
Are you about to assert that for Christians, Christ is NOT God?:pee:

[glockmail]

You don't have to behead people to be intolerant of other beliefs and philosophies. Christians believe that if you don't accept Jesus as your savior you'll go to hell. Period. That leaves little room for any other kind of belief system doesn't it? It's the built-in supremacist factor of nearly every religion. "If you don't believe exactly what I believe you'll burn in torment for eternity." That's not quite the pinnacle of open-mindedness. So that makes all religious people on par with Islamist terrorists? How tolerant of you.

[LOki]

:pee:You are the LOLZ.

[LOki]

Double post.

[glockmail]

You are the LOLZ.:pee:

[bullypulpit]

So that makes all religious people on par with Islamist terrorists? How tolerant of you.

The only one I see equating religious people with islamic terrorists is you. Beheading people is not an example of religious intolerance. It is terrorism...plain and simple. The religion of those engaging in such activity is irrelevant.

[glockmail]

The only one I see equating religious people with islamic terrorists is you. Beheading people is not an example of religious intolerance. It is terrorism...plain and simple. The religion of those engaging in such activity is irrelevant.

From the Koran:
9:3 And a proclamation from Allah and His messenger to all men on the day of the Greater Pilgrimage that Allah is free from obligation to the idolaters, and (so is) His messenger. So, if ye repent, it will be better for you; but if ye are averse, then know that ye cannot escape Allah. Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve, "Give tidings (O Muhammad) of a painful doom to those who disbelieve."
9:4 Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. (As for these), fulfil their treaty to them till their term. Lo! Allah loveth those who keep their duty (unto Him).
9:5 Then, when the sacred months have passed, slay the idolaters wherever ye find them, and take them (captive), and besiege them, and prepare for them each ambush. But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then leave their way free. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

[LuvRPgrl]

The only one I see equating religious people with islamic terrorists is you. Beheading people is not an example of religious intolerance. It is terrorism...plain and simple. The religion of those engaging in such activity is irrelevant.

Ahhh, so when a Christian does something barbaric, it shows how awful Christianity is, but if a Muslim does it, its because he is a terrorist.

Well, at least you are consistently inconsistent.

[LuvRPgrl]

It's called English. It's our language and words have meaning. Do you really think Jefferson spent weeks crafting the DOI to have it say something other than exactly what he intended?

The desperation is all yours. I have only to hold up the constitution to prove that our government is secular. There's not a single thing religious or Christian about it. 1860's monetary mottos doesn't change that fact.

So, everything about our nation is contained in the US Constitution?

Ok mr "what the definition of is, is"

[LuvRPgrl]

Their Creator just as it is written; such that Hindus could be endowed by Their Creator..., and Muslims could be endowed by Their Creator..., and Bhuddists could be endowed by Their Creator..., and Zoroastrians could be endowed by Their Creator..., and Atheists could be endowed by Their Creator (whatever that means)..., as well as Christians and Their Creator--despite the Christian God's injunction against believing in other gods, subscribing to other religions, and disbeleiving in Jesus.

Missileman has it right; if they were going to be purposefully Christian about it, they would have said "...endowed by our Creator...", or "...endowed by the creative power of Christ...", or "...endowed by Pale Rider's Creator...", but unfortunately for your argument, no such phrasing was included. Sorry about your luck.

Not so, Since it is a signed, legal document, then any time the word OUR would be used, it could ONLY REFER TO THOSE WHO SIGNED IT.

[Psychoblues]

Zactly!!!!!!!!!!



Not so, Since it is a signed, legal document, then any time the word OUR would be used, it could ONLY REFER TO THOSE WHO SIGNED IT.

The rest of us are on our own!!!!!!!!!!!

[LOki]

Not so, Since it is a signed, legal document, then any time the word OUR would be used, it could ONLY REFER TO THOSE WHO SIGNED IT....and those who the signatories represented to the King of England. The way the document is <i>actually</i> written, the citizens of 13 colonies were not in any manner legally bound to the faith(s) or religious beliefs of the signatories to the DOI.

[Missileman]

So, everything about our nation is contained in the US Constitution?

As it pertains to the founding of our nation and and establishment of our government, yes.


Ok mr "what the definition of is, is"

For the record, it's you and a few others who are trying to alter the definition of the word "their" in arguments that "their" specifies Christianity. I know what the definition of "their" is.

Go back and address post 573...or did you think it was forgotten and safe to come back?

[Missileman]

Not so, Since it is a signed, legal document, then any time the word OUR would be used, it could ONLY REFER TO THOSE WHO SIGNED IT.

:bsflag:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident"

[glockmail]

...and those who the signatories represented to the King of England. The way the document is <i>actually</i> written, the citizens of 13 colonies were not in any manner legally bound to the faith(s) or religious beliefs of the signatories to the DOI.Doesn't matter. The Christian Nation doesn't require its citizens to be Christian.

[LOki]

Doesn't matter. The Christian Nation doesn't require its citizens to be Christian.That's pretty funny--a Christian nation without any Christians. You may post your pissing monkey of defeat now.

[glockmail]

That's pretty funny--a Christian nation without any Christians. You may post your pissing monkey of defeat now.
The majority of Americans are Christians. :lame2:

[LOki]

The majority of Americans are Christians. :lame2:I can accept the proposition that the majority of Americans claim to be Christians, but I doubt you're prepared to prove your claim with evidence beyond their claims.

[glockmail]

I can accept the proposition that the majority of Americans claim to be Christians, but I doubt you're prepared to prove your claim with evidence beyond their claims.I'll take their word on it, but if you care to prove that most are liars, then by all means knock yourself out. :pee:

[LOki]

I'll take their word on it, but if you care to prove that most are liars, then by all means knock yourself out. :pee:Lies don't come into it glockmail, and claiming you're Christian doesn't make you one--your defeat monkey is pissing in the wind, as usual.

[glockmail]

Lies don't come into it glockmail, and claiming you're Christian doesn't make you one--your defeat monkey is pissing in the wind, as usual.Two silly arguments from you this time:
1. Wanting me to prove that Americans are Christian. That gets the big "Duh" for today.
2. Claiming a monkey is defeatist.

[LOki]

Two silly arguments from you this time:
1. Wanting me to prove that Americans are Christian. That gets the big "Duh" for today.
2. Claiming a monkey is defeatist.1. You actually made the argument that Americans are Christian; I only asked you to demonstrate it with evidence--that's not silly. What will be silly, is you running from the task in little pink booties.

2. Not an argument--but rather an observation that every time you find yourself in a position where you must admit you are wrong, self contradicting, or unable to support your baseless opininion with evidence or valid logic, you post the little pissing monkey to avoid (or in place of) said admission--every time.

[glockmail]

1. You actually made the argument that Americans are Christian; I only asked you to demonstrate it with evidence--that's not silly. What will be silly, is you running from the task in little pink booties.

2. Not an argument--but rather an observation that every time you find yourself in a position where you must admit you are wrong, self contradicting, or unable to support your baseless opininion with evidence or valid logic, you post the little pissing monkey to avoid (or in place of) said admission--every time.

1. http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions
2. Prove it. :pee:

[LOki]

1. http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html#religions<blockquote><i>"ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Christianity. Note that in the NSRI and ARIS studies, based on self-identification, Christianity includes: Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Methodist/Wesleyan, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Pentecostal/Charismatic, Episcopalian/Anglican, Mormon/Latter-day Saints/LDS, Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh-Day Adventist, Assemblies of God, Holiness/Holy, Congregational/United Church of Christ, Church of the Nazarine, Church of God, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical, Mennonite, Christian Science, Church of the Brethren, Born Again, Nondenominational Christians, Disciples of Christ, Reformed/Dutch Reformed, Apostolic/New Apostolic, Quaker, Full Gospel, Christian Reform, Foursquare Gospel, Fundamentalist, Salvation Army, Independent Christian Church, Covenant Church, Jewish Christians, plus 240,000 adults classified as "other" (who did not fall into the preceding groups)."</i></blockquote>I already stipulated that I can accept the proposition that the majority of Americans claim to be Christians, your link demonstrates nothing else. I still I doubt you're prepared to prove your claim, that majority of Americans are Christians, with evidence beyond their claims.

2. Prove it. :pee:To what end?

[glockmail]

<blockquote><i>"ADDITIONAL NOTES:

Christianity. Note that in the NSRI and ARIS studies, based on self-identification, Christianity includes: Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, Methodist/Wesleyan, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Pentecostal/Charismatic, Episcopalian/Anglican, Mormon/Latter-day Saints/LDS, Churches of Christ, Jehovah's Witness, Seventh-Day Adventist, Assemblies of God, Holiness/Holy, Congregational/United Church of Christ, Church of the Nazarine, Church of God, Eastern Orthodox, Evangelical, Mennonite, Christian Science, Church of the Brethren, Born Again, Nondenominational Christians, Disciples of Christ, Reformed/Dutch Reformed, Apostolic/New Apostolic, Quaker, Full Gospel, Christian Reform, Foursquare Gospel, Fundamentalist, Salvation Army, Independent Christian Church, Covenant Church, Jewish Christians, plus 240,000 adults classified as "other" (who did not fall into the preceding groups)."</i></blockquote>I already stipulated that I can accept the proposition that the majority of Americans claim to be Christians, your link demonstrates nothing else. I still I doubt you're prepared to prove your claim, that majority of Americans are Christians, with evidence beyond their claims.
To what end?
What a silly argument.:laugh2:

[LOki]

What a silly argument.:laugh2:What? No pissing monkey this time?

[glockmail]

:pee:
What? No pissing monkey this time?

[LOki]

:pee:BRAVO!:clap:

[glockmail]

:pee:
BRAVO!:clap:

[LuvRPgrl]

As it pertains to the founding of our nation and and establishment of our government, yes.?

So you are saying that there are no State Govt's?




As For the record, it's you and a few others who are trying to alter the definition of the word "their" in arguments that "their" specifies Christianity. I know what the definition of "their" is.

Go back and address post 573...or did you think it was forgotten and safe to come back?

Dont worry, I dont need to forget or ignore any of your posistions.

[Missileman]

So you are saying that there are no State Govt's?

No, I'm saying exactly what I said. As it pertains to the founding of the USA and the establishment of the government of the USA, AKA federal government.




Dont worry, I dont need to forget or ignore any of your posistions.

Are you going to retract your argument that the signers of the constitution went back to their states and established "The Church of England" as their official state religion?

[glockmail]

Yes they did

Colony Denomination Disestablished1
Connecticut Congregational 1818
Georgia Church of England
Massachusetts Congregational 17802
New Brunswick Church of England
New Hampshire Congregational 1790
Newfoundland Church of England
North Carolina Church of England ≤ 1776
Nova Scotia Church of England 1850
Prince Edward Island Church of England
South Carolina Church of England
Upper Canada Church of England 1854
Virginia Church of England 1786
West Indies Church of England 1868

Note 1: In several colonies, the establishment ceased to exist in practice at the Revolution, about 1776; this is the date of legal abolition.

Note 2: Replaced by a system which required every man to belong to a church, and permitted each church to tax its members. This was not, in theory, an establishment; but was sufficiently oppressive in practice, to be abolished in 1833.


HINT: disestablished is the opposite of established. In order to disestablish something, it had to have been established in the first place, and continue to be established until disestablished. Hence, in 1776, the most of the States supported a STATE ESTABLISHED RELIGION OR CHURCH.

....
This appears to have nailed it. America was founded as a Christian Nation. :salute:

[LuvRPgrl]

No, I'm saying exactly what I said. As it pertains to the founding of the USA and the establishment of the government of the USA, AKA federal government.?

Nice dodge. I see how you operate. Its called MYOPTIC thinking. "ALL I KNOW IS..."
Sorry to inform you, but the question isnt limited to the federal govt. The founders intended for the States to have more power than the central govt, hence they put more importance on what our country was founded on by the States. Since the States, most, had legally govt established religions, then it follows logically (I know thats difficult for you, logic defies myopticism) that the country was founded deeply steeped in religous roots. SInce the religions were Christian, it also follows the country was founded deeply steeped in Christianity.






Are you going to retract your argument that the signers of the constitution went back to their states and established "The Church of England" as their official state religion?


Why should I retract the truth? And please quote me where I said they "went back and established the Church of England"? Please quote me, beeeee careful now

[LuvRPgrl]

The only one I see equating religious people with islamic terrorists is you. Beheading people is not an example of religious intolerance. It is terrorism...plain and simple. The religion of those engaging in such activity is irrelevant.

And yet I will bet you blame the Spanish Inquisition on Christianity.

[diuretic]

And yet I will bet you blame the Spanish Inquisition on Christianity.

I blame the King and Queen of Spain, they used Catholicism as an excuse to fortify their power.

And given the Catholic Church is still in existence and isn't approving the torture and hanging of people I reckon that makes my point.

[Psychoblues]

And you think that makes a difference to these heathens?


I blame the King and Queen of Spain, they used Catholicism as an excuse to fortify their power.

And given the Catholic Church is still in existence and isn't approving the torture and hanging of people I reckon that makes my point.

You are a better man than me, doc.

[diuretic]

And you think that makes a difference to these heathens?



You are a better man than me, doc.

I thought it was an exam question PB :coffee:

[LOki]

This appears to have nailed it. America was founded as a Christian Nation. :salute:LOLz! (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=148725#post148725) :salute:

[Missileman]

Why should I retract the truth? And please quote me where I said they "went back and established the Church of England"? Please quote me, beeeee careful now


Then precisely why did they go back and vote on laws ESTABLISING STATE SANCTIONED RELIGIONS?


Originally Posted by LuvRPgrl

Colony Denomination Disestablished1
Connecticut Congregational 1818
Georgia Church of England
Massachusetts Congregational 17802
New Brunswick Church of England
New Hampshire Congregational 1790
Newfoundland Church of England
North Carolina Church of England ≤ 1776
Nova Scotia Church of England 1850
Prince Edward Island Church of England
South Carolina Church of England
Upper Canada Church of England 1854
Virginia Church of England 1786
West Indies Church of England 1868


You're dismissed!

[glockmail]

LOLz! (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=148725#post148725) :salute:That's a stretch- too far.

[LOki]

That's a stretch- too far.How so?

[glockmail]

How so?Its your opinion and makes no sense.

[LOki]

Its your opinion and makes no sense.It's my opinion, agreed; an opinion that is supported by the facts, rather than wishful thinking, and hopeful revisionism.

[glockmail]

It's my opinion, agreed; an opinion that is supported by the facts, rather than wishful thinking, and hopeful revisionism.Your opinion and spun facts. Nice try though. :pee:

[LOki]

Your opinion and spun facts. Nice try though. :pee:No spin. It's gratifying to see you admit defeat.

[glockmail]

No spin. It's gratifying to see you admit defeat.
It's gratifying to see you become delusional. :lol:

[LOki]

It's gratifying to see you become delusional. :lol:Your little pee monkey that you post, instead of facts to support your postion, indicates otherwise. :salute:

[glockmail]

Your little pee monkey that you post, instead of facts to support your postion, indicates otherwise. :salute: This is the same thing that you tell yourself after you wake up on the floor of a men's room with a broken nose, two black eyes and soaked with someone else's urine. If denial is what you do to deal with your failures then I for one am happy for you.:laugh2:

[LOki]

This is the same thing that you tell yourself after you wake up on the floor of a men's room with a broken nose, two black eyes and soaked with someone else's urine. If denial is what you do to deal with your failures then I for one am happy for you.:laugh2:You like to make up these little stories to make yourself feel better, don't you? I have no idea what you're talking about, but I suspect this is some kind of projection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection).

[LuvRPgrl]

You're dismissed!

As the winner !!:dance::dance::dance::dance::dance:

[LuvRPgrl]

It's my opinion, agreed; an opinion that is supported by the facts, rather than wishful thinking, and hopeful revisionism.


If something is supported by facts, then its not an opinion.

unless you want to say its supported by circumstancial facts. Which really arent facts, but just possible coincidences.

[Missileman]

If something is supported by facts, then its not an opinion.

unless you want to say its supported by circumstancial facts. Which really arent facts, but just possible coincidences.

If you aren't using facts as a basis for your opinions, what are you using? A coin flip? Ouija board? The dribble pattern of the drool on the front of your shirt?

[glockmail]

If you aren't using facts as a basis for your opinions, what are you using? A coin flip? Ouija board? The dribble pattern of the drool on the front of your shirt? You should be asking this question of yourself, and LOki. :pee:

[LOki]

You should be asking this question of yourself, and LOki. :pee:We've been asking you for basis for your opinions though; the answer appears to be a pissing monkey. I, for one, am not surpirsed at the results.

[LuvRPgrl]

If you aren't using facts as a basis for your opinions, what are you using? A coin flip? Ouija board? The dribble pattern of the drool on the front of your shirt?

Virtually all the issues come down to cold hard facts, resulting in a conclusion which is undeniable, except to the delusional (Libecrats)

Having an agenda first causes one to be delusional at times.

Now, for this thread, which is what Im referring to, whether or not tax breaks increase revenues, is not an opinion, the answer will be a matter of fact. Either it does, or it doesnt, or sometimes does, sometimes doesnt. Any which way it turns out, it certainly wont be an opinon , except to the delusional.

[LOki]

Virtually all the issues come down to cold hard facts, resulting in a conclusion which is undeniable, except to the delusional (Libecrats)

Having an agenda first causes one to be delusional at times.

Now, for this thread, which is what Im referring to, whether or not tax breaks increase revenues, is not an opinion, the answer will be a matter of fact. Either it does, or it doesnt, or sometimes does, sometimes doesnt. Any which way it turns out, it certainly wont be an opinon , except to the delusional.Point made. BRAVO!:clap:

[Dustin]

Yes, america was founded as a Christain one but the consistuion of our nation was not. When america was founded we were part of the UK, like it or not so that really is not an arguement.

[glockmail]

We've been asking you for basis for your opinions though; the answer appears to be a pissing monkey. I, for one, am not surpirsed at the results.
Bump.

The basis is posted in the OP and in several thoughtful responses. As usual the deniers started off with demonization and insults to disguise the fact that they have no legitimate argument.

[Jagger]

Government is proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion

[Des]

America was founded on Christian values by Christians who had been persecuted for their beliefs and wanted to avoid the same thing happening...not as a Christian nation. These values can be clearly seen throughout the constitution...one of the biggest being "free will". It's funny how many American Christians want to take away basic rights of others, shouting that this nation is suppose to be a Christian one. Really? We are a theocracy? Interesting...

[bullypulpit]

America was founded on Christian values by Christians who had been persecuted for their beliefs and wanted to avoid the same thing happening...not as a Christian nation. These values can be clearly seen throughout the constitution...one of the biggest being "free will". It's funny how many American Christians want to take away basic rights of others, shouting that this nation is suppose to be a Christian one. Really? We are a theocracy? Interesting...

You just threw a big bloody chunk of raw meat to the right wing-nuts...Or was that your intent?

[April15]

it was all the perverts and misfits that came here. Hardly a group roaring with angelic intentions. But if you want to keep on believing in "the puritans" by all means do so.

[bullypulpit]

Government is proscribed from interfering, in any manner whatever, in matters respecting religion

So, if a religious group practices the genital mutilation of pre-pubescent girls, they can do so with impunity? Or perhaps they dash the brains of babies out on the altar of their favorite deity. Is this behavior, this expression of religious faith, also protected.

Think before you post.

[Jagger]

So, if a religious group practices the genital mutilation of pre-pubescent girls, they can do so with impunity?
Nope. Religion is the duty we owe to our Creator and the methods of discharging it. Genital mutilation is not a duty owed to our Creator?

[crin63]

it was all the perverts and misfits that came here. Hardly a group roaring with angelic intentions. But if you want to keep on believing in "the puritans" by all means do so.

The Puritans had some issues but were very good on their Biblical view of Salvation, depravity of man and the workings of the Holy Spirit.

Baptists stood against the Puritans for their theocratic practices and helped shape the laws that govern the US. Baptists had their tricentennial celebration last year of the first Baptist Church in the US.

Before you are to hard on the Puritans, you beer drinkers should be thanking them. If I remember correctly it was a Puritan that created beer as an alternative to rum. They also weren't the sexual prudes that they are made out to be. I read quite some time back of a Puritan woman taking her husband before the congregation of their church because he wasn't meeting her sexual needs.

[SeeingStarz]

The Puritans had some issues but were very good on their Biblical view of Salvation, depravity of man and the workings of the Holy Spirit...

Before you are to hard on the Puritans, you beer drinkers should be thanking them. If I remember correctly it was a Puritan that created beer as an alternative to rum. They also weren't the sexual prudes that they are made out to be. I read quite some time back of a Puritan woman taking her husband before the congregation of their church because he wasn't meeting her sexual needs.

Until it was ruled that his impotence was because he was married to a witch ;)

As for beer, I thought it was created when some dude in the early Middle Ages found that some grain that had turned rotten and liquefied tasted good. Do you mean a Puritan promoted beer over rum? Would make sense in terms of economy, temperance and access.

[Kathianne]

Until it was ruled that his impotence was because he was married to a witch ;)

As for beer, I thought it was created when some dude in the early Middle Ages found that some grain that had turned rotten and liquefied tasted good. Do you mean a Puritan promoted beer over rum? Would make sense in terms of economy, temperance and access.

Yep, ale and mead are medieval beverages, water was really bad back then.

[namvet]

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.

having been there at that time you would know. PS FUCK YOU TO

[glockmail]

So, if a religious group practices the genital mutilation of pre-pubescent girls, they can do so with impunity? Or perhaps they dash the brains of babies out on the altar of their favorite deity. Is this behavior, this expression of religious faith, also protected.

Think before you post.
The right to practice a religion does not supersede other human rights.

[trueblue]

that the U.S. government is not to favor one religion over the other. While Christian, I don't believe Christianity as a predominant religion is an exception to the constitutional rule.

This means Christianity alone should not define our policy. Neither should an individuals atheism alter tributes to the ten commandments (which is actually a Jewish document) or other forms of law or worship that did have an influence in the establishment of our nation.

[Noir]

It seems constitutionally clearthat the U.S. government is not to favor one religion over the other. While Christian, I don't believe Christianity as a predominant religion is an exception to the constitutional rule.

This means Christianity alone should not define our policy. Neither should an individuals atheism alter tributes to the ten commandments (which is actually a Jewish document) or other forms of law or worship that did have an influence in the establishment of our nation.

It would seem so, doesn't it? But not in practice, as our good old friends $cientology get preferential treatment,
Within the following video there is audio from a Court Case, where the IRS are questioned by a judge about there no tax policy over $cientology, the answers would be funny if they we're such a sham:

<object width="400" height="267"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="movie" value="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1837092&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;sho w_title=1&amp;show_byline=1&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=&amp;ful lscreen=1" /><embed src="http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=1837092&amp;server=vimeo.com&amp;sho w_title=1&amp;show_byline=1&amp;show_portrait=0&amp;color=&amp;ful lscreen=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="400" height="267"></embed></object><p><a href="http://vimeo.com/1837092">Road To March 15th</a> from <a href="http://vimeo.com/user754174">Church0fScientology</a> on <a href="http://vimeo.com">Vimeo</a>.</p>

[crin63]

The more I study this question the more I find that yes, America was founded as a Christian nation.

I think it was 29 out of 56 signers of The Declaration of Independence had gone to seminary.

The very first session of congress is reported to have spent 3 hours in prayer prior to commencing with any business. It is also reported that even the old Quakers were crying when they were done. After which they had a Bible study. John Adams told Abigail that she should read Psalm 35, read it to your friends and read it your father.

Congress also printed the first English language Bible in the U.S.A. 11 months after winning at Yorktown for use in our public schools.

I think there was some 14 national days of fasting and prayer followed up by national days of thanksgiving. John Adams said “millions will be upon their knees at once before their creator, imploring His forgiveness and blessings: His smiles on American councils and arms.

US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall affirmed that: Our great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian Faith.

John Adams acknowledged: The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were.......the general principles of Christianity.

President Harry Truman openly avowed: In this great country of ours has been demonstrated the fundamental unity of Christianity and democracy.

Andrew Jackson
“The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests”

John Adams credited pastors for Americas independence Mayhew, Cooper, Whitefield, Chauncy

George Washington said with regards to all the battles he was winning that
“The hand of Providence has been so conspicuous in all this that he must be worse than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations”

In the treaty between the USA and Britain it was signed, “ In the Name of the Most Holy and undivided Trinity”. Sounds very Biblical to me.


In George Washington's farewell address there are a couple of quotes regarding religion worth noting.

For this you have every inducement of sympathy and interest. Citizens, by birth or choice, of a common country, that country has a right to concentrate your affections. The name of american, which belongs to you, in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of Patriotism, more than any appellation derived from local discriminations. With slight shades of difference, you have the same religion, manners, habits, and political principles. You have in a common cause fought and triumphed together; the Independence and Liberty you possess are the work of joint counsels, and joint efforts, of common dangers, sufferings, and successes.

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 of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. (I think George Washington just said that anyone who tries to remove religion from our politics is unpatriotic. He was also obviously talking about Christianity) The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

It just goes on and on and on.

[Mr. P]

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/nation.html

[crin63]

http://bmccreations.com/one_nation/nation.html

No matter how much you don't want it to be and no matter how much you try to spin it, you cant change what our founding fathers said, what they believed and how they planned for our country to a Christian nation. To make any other claim is just intellectual dishonesty.

[glockmail]

that the U.S. government is not to favor one religion over the other. While Christian, I don't believe Christianity as a predominant religion is an exception to the constitutional rule.

This means Christianity alone should not define our policy. Neither should an individuals atheism alter tributes to the ten commandments (which is actually a Jewish document) or other forms of law or worship that did have an influence in the establishment of our nation.Since the Constitution is founded on Christianity then non-Christians are treated equally and with tolerance. Not so with non-Christian based governments.

[theHawk]

Since the Constitution is founded on Christianity then non-Christians are treated equally and with tolerance. Not so with non-Christian based governments.

You mean like our current government?

[theHawk]

So, if a religious group practices the genital mutilation of pre-pubescent girls, they can do so with impunity? Or perhaps they dash the brains of babies out on the altar of their favorite deity. Is this behavior, this expression of religious faith, also protected.

Think before you post.

Those are not religious acts, they are violent ones.

Violent acts can be outlawed. Saying it was done in the name of religion isn't going to be much a defense.

[crin63]

So, if a religious group practices the genital mutilation of pre-pubescent girls, they can do so with impunity? Or perhaps they dash the brains of babies out on the altar of their favorite deity. Is this behavior, this expression of religious faith, also protected.

Think before you post.


Those are not religious acts, they are violent ones.

Violent acts can be outlawed. Saying it was done in the name of religion isn't going to be much a defense.

The premise was not whether America was founded as a religious nation. The premise is that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Pagan religions would do those things mentioned but not actual Christianity.

It is quite clear from the writings of the founders that they intended us to be a Christian nation since they used the Bible and commissioned its printing for use in our schools.

[theHawk]

The premise was not whether America was founded as a religious nation. The premise is that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Pagan religions would do those things mentioned but not actual Christianity.

It is quite clear from the writings of the founders that they intended us to be a Christian nation since they used the Bible and commissioned its printing for use in our schools.

Of course it was founded as a Christian nation.

The whole premise of our Constitution and freedoms is built on the foundation of a nation with Christian morality. A democracy cannot funtion when its population is bereft of morality. Which seems to be where our country has been heading for some years now.

[crin63]

Of course it was founded as a Christian nation.

The whole premise of our Constitution and freedoms is built on the foundation of a nation with Christian morality. A democracy cannot funtion when its population is bereft of morality. Which seems to be where our country has been heading for some years now.

Agreed!

BP was trying to confuse religion with Christianity. My point was just to separate Christianity from pagan religions and that America was established as a Christian nation, not just a religious nation.

[Missileman]

The founders intended for the US to be a secular nation where one's spirituality was none of the government's business. If they had intended, as some suggest, to create a Christian nation, they would not have encoded in the Constitution a violation of what is arguably the most sacred Christian tenet, AKA Commandment Numero Uno...Thou shalt have no God but me.

[Kathianne]

that the U.S. government is not to favor one religion over the other. While Christian, I don't believe Christianity as a predominant religion is an exception to the constitutional rule.

This means Christianity alone should not define our policy. Neither should an individuals atheism alter tributes to the ten commandments (which is actually a Jewish document) or other forms of law or worship that did have an influence in the establishment of our nation.

All that is meant by 'separation between church and state' is the prohibition to 'establish a state church', meaning the protestants were prohibited from making the Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian church the official religion, depending upon the century in question. Likewise Christian over Jews, Muslims, atheists.

That's why it's referred to as the 'establishment clause.'

It doesn't mean we cannot discuss, pray, worship, etc. It means that the state and it's organs will not promote one over another. It's why it's fine to teach comparative religions, but not any one.

[trueblue]

Agreed. The government is not to favor a church-- not abolish all religious influence. The ACLU seems to be among organizations bound and determine to change that as they push forward their daily fight for agnosticism.

[emmett]

The premise was not whether America was founded as a religious nation. The premise is that America was founded as a Christian nation.

Pagan religions would do those things mentioned but not actual Christianity.

It is quite clear from the writings of the founders that they intended us to be a Christian nation since they used the Bible and commissioned its printing for use in our schools.

Was Polygamy originally legal in America? I'm curious because in your post you mention that we were founded as a Christian nation.....not a religious one. Would you consider Mormans, many were active in the beginning, to be Christians? Is their religion technically legal and a part of the founders...or WAS it illegal? If illegal, wouldn't we be founded as a religious nation not a Christian one?

Was Joseph Smith a sinner? I know he was a while prior but his teachings were still very active in the Morman church at t he time of founding.

What about Brigham Young?

I think we take the founding fathers out of context to declare that we were founded as either a religious nation or a Christian nation. It was understood from the beginning that it was not a prerequisite to be a Chriostian to live here. What part of the Constitution says one must, by law, believe in God to be an American citizen?

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,



Of course it was founded as a Christian nation.

The whole premise of our Constitution and freedoms is built on the foundation of a nation with Christian morality. A democracy cannot funtion when its population is bereft of morality. Which seems to be where our country has been heading for some years now.




1. One word, *muslims*.
2. They started coming here in large numbers about fourty years ago today.
3. And we are in a load of dog shit now because of it.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Joyful HoneyBee]

As a person of faith, I would be be remiss to fail to comment on this thread. It is imperative that we realize and acknowledge the fact that people flooded to the shores of this 'new world' to be FREE of the religious persecution they had suffered in their respective homelands. Are we to now turn around and become a nation of religious persecution, denying the very foundation of the birth of this country?

In the Old Testament, King Solomon had a multitude of wives, many of which practiced foreign forms of religion. It was only when King Solomon himself partook of their ceremonial practices that he lost favor with God.

The other day my 16 year old daughter got off work and started telling me about how a young co-worker of hers was preaching to the other employees about the way they were living their lives. She cut him off and told him that it was people like him who drove others away from God, rather than to draw them nearer. I agree with her assessment, the more Christians try to force the issue and drive home their own agenda, the less likely we are to draw those who are standing on the fringe. 'Tis truly easier to attract flies with honey than with vinegar, after all.

Some of the most amazing people I know don't ever cross the threshold of a church, and some of the most appalling people I know sit on the first few pews near the front. A relationship with God is a very personal experience, and no matter how hard one tries to fake it, for whatever reason, there is no faking true faith. On the flip side of the coin, there is no forcing true faith either.

We've always been a melting pot nation and it is through the diversity of ideas that we have become a super power. The surest way to undermine our progress is to become like the Shiites and Sunni's and Kurd's and start fighting amongst ourselves. We are so much better than that, aren't we?

[emmett]

As a person of faith, I would be be remiss to fail to comment on this thread. It is imperative that we realize and acknowledge the fact that people flooded to the shores of this 'new world' to be FREE of the religious persecution they had suffered in their respective homelands. Are we to now turn around and become a nation of religious persecution, denying the very foundation of the birth of this country?

In the Old Testament, King Solomon had a multitude of wives, many of which practiced foreign forms of religion. It was only when King Solomon himself partook of their ceremonial practices that he lost favor with God.

The other day my 16 year old daughter got off work and started telling me about how a young co-worker of hers was preaching to the other employees about the way they were living their lives. She cut him off and told him that it was people like him who drove others away from God, rather than to draw them nearer. I agree with her assessment, the more Christians try to force the issue and drive home their own agenda, the less likely we are to draw those who are standing on the fringe. 'Tis truly easier to attract flies with honey than with vinegar, after all.

Some of the most amazing people I know don't ever cross the threshold of a church, and some of the most appalling people I know sit on the first few pews near the front. A relationship with God is a very personal experience, and no matter how hard one tries to fake it, for whatever reason, there is no faking true faith. On the flip side of the coin, there is no forcing true faith either.

We've always been a melting pot nation and it is through the diversity of ideas that we have become a super power. The surest way to undermine our progress is to become like the Shiites and Sunni's and Kurd's and start fighting amongst ourselves. We are so much better than that, aren't we?


While I would not be exactly capable of wording it quite like that or.....

exactly capable of writing it quite that way....

or exactly able to canvey it with that tact....

I exactly agree!:laugh2:


Can't rep you though because you have made too much sense here lately and we are only allowed to male a certain amount of sense here, we utilize the Affirmative Action Repping system you understand so as soon as ten or so others say something valuable...I can rep you again!:beer:

[maineman]

As a person of faith, I would be be remiss to fail to comment on this thread. It is imperative that we realize and acknowledge the fact that people flooded to the shores of this 'new world' to be FREE of the religious persecution they had suffered in their respective homelands. Are we to now turn around and become a nation of religious persecution, denying the very foundation of the birth of this country?

In the Old Testament, King Solomon had a multitude of wives, many of which practiced foreign forms of religion. It was only when King Solomon himself partook of their ceremonial practices that he lost favor with God.

The other day my 16 year old daughter got off work and started telling me about how a young co-worker of hers was preaching to the other employees about the way they were living their lives. She cut him off and told him that it was people like him who drove others away from God, rather than to draw them nearer. I agree with her assessment, the more Christians try to force the issue and drive home their own agenda, the less likely we are to draw those who are standing on the fringe. 'Tis truly easier to attract flies with honey than with vinegar, after all.

Some of the most amazing people I know don't ever cross the threshold of a church, and some of the most appalling people I know sit on the first few pews near the front. A relationship with God is a very personal experience, and no matter how hard one tries to fake it, for whatever reason, there is no faking true faith. On the flip side of the coin, there is no forcing true faith either.

We've always been a melting pot nation and it is through the diversity of ideas that we have become a super power. The surest way to undermine our progress is to become like the Shiites and Sunni's and Kurd's and start fighting amongst ourselves. We are so much better than that, aren't we?

bravo

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. It amazes me just how ignorant the people of USA are.
2. Give it away, its soon to be all lost.
3. I see its going to happen within the next ten years.
4. But when it all goes muslims around here.
5. You will have brought it upon yourselves.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[Joyful HoneyBee]

SirJames,

I understand your concerns, truly I do. I am horrified by the prospect of being overrun by Radical Islamic Extremists, but would you have us go back to the Crusades? Would you have us put people in prison for their religious convictions as they do in other places around the world?

What is your idea of the solution to this issue?

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,







SirJames,

I understand your concerns, truly I do. I am horrified by the prospect of being overrun by Radical Islamic Extremists, but would you have us go back to the Crusades? Would you have us put people in prison for their religious convictions as they do in other places around the world?

What is your idea of the solution to this issue?





1. I would outlaw islam in America.
2. Label it a terrorist sect.
3. Tear down the all their places of meetings.
4. Buy up everything they own, send them away.
5. Where ever they will be welcomed.
6. Nip it in the bud, is the best path to take.
7. *We Are A Christian Nation, Love It Or Leave It.*
8. *Don't Tread On Me*



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

[trueblue]

Sorry bout that,












1. I would outlaw islam in America.
2. Label it a terrorist sect.
3. Tear down the all their places of meetings.
4. Buy up everything they own, send them away.
5. Where ever they will be welcomed.
6. Nip it in the bud, is the best path to take.
7. *We Are A Christian Nation, Love It Or Leave It.*
8. *Don't Tread On Me*



Regards,
SirJamesofTexas
Of course, if we were to take such action we could expect the same in return. Christians would be abolished from all of Asia, Africa and the Middle East. There would be millions of refugees evacuating worldwide and the astronomical cost would be covered at least in part by your tax dollars.

All so that you don't have to have Muslim neighbors, who may actually be very peaceful and a more devout worshipper of God than even yourself.

Doesn't sound very Christian. Any better ideas?